Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Reynolds, 18-0158 JD. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190522979 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 21, 2019
Latest Update: May 21, 2019
Summary: STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING CHANGE-OF-PLEA HEARING JAMES DONATO , District Judge . The above-captioned case is currently scheduled for a change-of-plea hearing on May 22, 2019. However, the parties need additional time to conduct legal research regarding recent amendments to the sentencing provisions of the Controlled Substances Act and related case law. Accordingly, the parties jointly request that the change-of-plea hearing be continued to June 19, 2019. Further, the parties stipulate an
More

STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING CHANGE-OF-PLEA HEARING

The above-captioned case is currently scheduled for a change-of-plea hearing on May 22, 2019. However, the parties need additional time to conduct legal research regarding recent amendments to the sentencing provisions of the Controlled Substances Act and related case law. Accordingly, the parties jointly request that the change-of-plea hearing be continued to June 19, 2019.

Further, the parties stipulate and jointly request that time be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculations from May 21, 2019 through June 19, 2019 for effective preparation and continuity of counsel. The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED May 21, 2019 DAVID L. ANDERSON United States Attorney /s/ MATTHEW L. McCARTHY Assistant United States Attorney DATED May 21, 2019 /s/ JOYCE LEAVITT Attorney for Defendant DATED May 21, 2019 /s/ ALANNA COOPERSMITH Advisory Attorney for Defendant

ORDER

For good cause shown, this matter shall be added to the Court's calendar on June 19, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. for a change-of-plea hearing.

In addition, for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an exclusion of time from May 21, 2019 through June 19, 2019 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 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