Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Rubalcaba, CR 4:18-0056. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190301b63 Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND EXCLUDE TIME, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between, Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Dawson, counsel for the Plaintiff, and Brendan M. Hickey, counsel for Defendant Sergio Rubalcaba, agree and request that the change of plea hearing be continued to April 5, 2019. Unfortunately, Defense counsel has to be present for a family member's medical procedure on Friday, March 1, 2019, and the part
More

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND EXCLUDE TIME, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between, Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Dawson, counsel for the Plaintiff, and Brendan M. Hickey, counsel for Defendant Sergio Rubalcaba, agree and request that the change of plea hearing be continued to April 5, 2019. Unfortunately, Defense counsel has to be present for a family member's medical procedure on Friday, March 1, 2019, and the parties and court are not all available again until April 5, 2019.

For the reasons stated above, the parties request that the matter be continued to April 5, 2019, at 9:30 am. The parties further stipulate to exclude time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act between March 1, 2019, and April 5, 2019. The parties agree that an exclusion of time is appropriate under the Speedy Trial Act for continuity of counsel and for the effective preparation of counsel. The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court orders that the change of plea hearing currently set for March 1, 2019, be continued to April 5, 2019. The court further finds that the exclusion of time from March 1, 2019 through and including April 5, 2019 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the defendant effective preparation of counsel, would interrupt the continuity of counsel, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

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