Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Drone, CR 18-00008-MAG. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190125876 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION VIRGINIA DEMARCHI , Magistrate Judge . The parties, through Counsel, stipulate that the status/change of plea hearing currently scheduled for December 3, 2018, may be continued to February 4, 2019. The reason for the requested continuance is to allow the parties sufficient time to conduct additional investigation, and reach a resolution in this case. The parties also jointly requ
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION

The parties, through Counsel, stipulate that the status/change of plea hearing currently scheduled for December 3, 2018, may be continued to February 4, 2019. The reason for the requested continuance is to allow the parties sufficient time to conduct additional investigation, and reach a resolution in this case. The parties also jointly request that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act between August 6, 2018 and February 4, 2019 to allow the defense and the Government continuity of counsel and the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Upon stipulation of the parties, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. This matter is set before this Court for a change of plea hearing on February 4, 2019.

2. The time between August 2, 2018 and February 4, 2019 shall be excluded from the computation of time within which trial shall commence under the Speedy Trial Act, as failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense and Government counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS 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