Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Stipulated Order (Northern District of California, Document 9, filed February 27, 2023)

Stipulated Order (Northern District of California, Document 9, filed February 27, 2023)

Summary

A stipulated order on a Speedy Trial Act form of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, in a case numbered 4:23-cr-00060-HSG, Document 9, filed February 27, 2023. The printed text 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, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). It lists possible factors, including a miscarriage of justice, case complexity, time to obtain counsel and continuity of counsel. The form also finds good cause to extend the preliminary hearing time limits 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

Cite this document

“Stipulated Order (Northern District of California, Document 9, filed February 27, 2023).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-4-23-cr-00060-dkt-9-n-d-cal-b47022a133/, SHA-256 9e7411886860012668a2f33a58e5c46e3984867f39370de1a02576076f903e53.

Full text

                Case 4:23-cr-00060-HSG Document 9 Filed 02/27/23 Page 1 of 1

                                          United States District Court
                                        NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                                              OAKLAND DIVISION


       United States of America,                              Case No. C/l                         tf ^
                       Plaintiff,                             STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDIN             N^IME
                  V.                                          UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL AC             tF/
       /lla-fpiwd              /
                       Defendant(s).
                                                                                                             ^ B0
For the reasons stated by the parties on the record on 2.11^7 j z^        , the court excludes time^?tef^
Trial Act from 2/27 /Z-'J           to ^ J1-6 J ^            and finds that the ends ofjustice served by the
continuance outweigh the best interest of the pubii
                                              pubfic 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. § 3161(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 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. § 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:
                                                               DONNA M. RYU
                                                              United States Magistrate Judge


       STIPULATED:
                                          endant                   stant United States Attorney


                                                                                                        V. 1/10/2019

File and source

File
9.pdf
Size
723,812 bytes
SHA-256
9e7411886860012668a2f33a58e5c46e3984867f39370de1a02576076f903e53
Our copy
9.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top