Stipulated Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act (No. 3:23-cr-00300, Document 3)

Summary

Stipulated order excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act, a form order in the Northern District of California. The form states that the court excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act and finds that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. It lists factors for the finding, such as that failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice, with reasons to be checked as applicable. With the consent of the defendant, the form also finds good cause for extending the time limits for a preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and the 30-day period for an indictment.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 3:23-cr-00300-SI Document 3 Filed 09/15/23 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SELECT DIVISION

Case No. ( (CL 22 - Go Zo6 Si

| United States of America, )
| )
el tines ) STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
) UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
” pyensoudy )

For the reasons <* 3703 arties on the record on 4 lis [v3 , the court excludes time under the Speedy
Trial Act from / to_/O “TT and finds that the ends of justice served by the
continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A). The court makes this finding and bases this continuance on the following factor(s):

Failure toigrant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)().

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 extending
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: A} ( ¥/ 2043 cat

Ah United States Magistrate Judge
STIPULATED: _ ee JL ae

y. 1/10/2019


File and source

File

3.pdf

Size

353,046 bytes

SHA-256

f2e6341ec023871988590cf84cba7f6979c1026892f1c95ef6a96e3d629bc7a1

Our copy

3.pdf

Original

No public link identified.