Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

USA v. Hatch, CR 17-301 JST. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20171212887 Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the status hearing in this matter, currently set for December 15, 2017, be continued to January 26, 2018, and be calendared for either a change of plea or motion/trial setting date. Additional time in necessary to accommodate defense counsel's need to review discovery, research relevant Guidelines and other legal issues, and confer further with the defendant and
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING

The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the status hearing in this matter, currently set for December 15, 2017, be continued to January 26, 2018, and be calendared for either a change of plea or motion/trial setting date. Additional time in necessary to accommodate defense counsel's need to review discovery, research relevant Guidelines and other legal issues, and confer further with the defendant and the government. The parties will notify the Court in advance of the January 26th hearing if there will be a change of plea.

The parties further stipulate that the Court exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, for effective preparation of counsel. The parties further stipulate, and ask the Court to find, that the requested continuance and exclusion of time are in the interests of justice and outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO STIPULATED:

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court continues the status hearing set for December 15, 2017 and resets the matter for a change of plea or motion/trial setting date for January 26, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. The Court further orders time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, for effective preparation of counsel. Failure to grant the continuance would deny the defendant's counsel the reasonable time necessary to prepare, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer