Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Stipulated Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act (Northern District of California, Document 34)

Stipulated Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act (Northern District of California, Document 34)

Summary

Stipulated Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act, on a form of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, in a case numbered 4:22-cr-00202-HSG, Document 34, filed June 1, 2022. 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 interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). It lists alternative grounds for the continuance and provides 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 under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). It is signed by a United States Magistrate Judge.

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

Cite this document

“Stipulated Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act (Northern District of California, Document 34).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-4-22-cr-00202-dkt-34-n-d-cal-abff0af421/, SHA-256 c314b4a0facda1e5c8c56cb439b95f038f585ac47b0ff53db4b4eef9b2024c25.

Full text

                Case 4:22-cr-00202-HSG Document 34 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 1               FILED
                                                                                                JUN -1 2022
                                         United States District Court
                                        NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA                    CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
                                              OAKLAND DIVISION
                                                                                         NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CAUFORNIA

       United States of America,                              Case No.fvi-
                        Plaintiff,                            STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
                   V.                                         UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

                        c>on*-»0              Wnv)
                        Defendant(s).

For the reasons stated by the parties on^ record on       1        the court excludes time under the Speedy
Trial Act from           f7-oVZ^ toAj               Jo^&^-finds that the ends ofjustice 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 to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage ofjustice.
              See 18 U.S.C. § 3I61(h)(7)(B)(i).

              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 offact
              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. § 3I61(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:

                                                              Kandis A. Westmore
                                                             United States Magistrate Judge


       STIPULATED:
                          attorney for Defendant             A^stant United States Attorney


                                                                                                      V. 1/10/2019

File and source

File
34.pdf
Size
715,113 bytes
SHA-256
c314b4a0facda1e5c8c56cb439b95f038f585ac47b0ff53db4b4eef9b2024c25
Our copy
34.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top