Court filing
Stipulated ORDER Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act as to Aaron Boren — USA v. Mosley et al (Dkt. 16)
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2023-05-16 |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:23-cr-00134-AMO · Doc. 16 · 2023-05-16 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
A one-page stipulated order excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act as to Aaron Boren, filed May 16, 2023 as Document 16 in USA v. Mosley et al, No. 4:23-cr-00134-AMO, in the Oakland Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On the court's standard form, a United States Magistrate Judge finds that the ends of justice served by a continuance outweigh the interest in a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The form lists the statutory grounds for a continuance, including case complexity and the defendant's need for time to obtain counsel or prepare. It also finds good cause to extend the time limits for a preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and the 30-day period for an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
United States of America, Plaintiff, V. United States District Court NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION u-ow -t STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT Defendant(s). For the reasons stated by the parties on the record on ^/\^\ *2^ ^3 , the court excludes time under Ae Speedy Trial Act from to and finds that the ends of justice pr\ continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial See 8 y;S.C. f 3161(h)(7)(A). The court makes this finding and bases this continuance on the following factor(s). ^ ^ Failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of ^ 18 U.S.C. § 316I(h)(7)(B)(i). Oakland The case is so unusual or so complex, due to [check applicable reasons] the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or the trial itself within the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Failure to grant a continuance would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel, given counsel's other scheduled case commitments, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant 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). With the consent of the defendant, and taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases, the court sets the preliminary hearing to the date set forth in the first paragraph and — based on the parties' showing of good cause — finds good cause for exteiymg the time limits for a preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and for extending the 30-day time period for an indictment under the Speedy Trial Act (based on the exclusions set forth above). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1; 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: ZoZ.\ STIPULATED: 'Kandis X. Westmore United States Magistrate fudge Attorney Assistant United States Attorney v. 1/10/2019 Case 4:23-cr-00134-AMO Document 16 Filed 05/16/23 Page 1 of 1
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.412167.16.0.pdf
- Size
- 758,247 bytes
- SHA-256
- 0048d6c5a1e0c232af9b57c15816c21de3dd6fa5ae75db19df2a38ae7ae0b20b
- Original
- PACER (login required)