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 13)

Stipulated Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act (Northern District of California, Document 13)

Summary

Stipulated Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act, filed May 16, 2023 as Document 13 in a case numbered 4:23-cr-00134-AMO in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division. The form recites that the court excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act and 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 sets out alternative factors, such as complexity, reasonable time to obtain counsel and effective preparation, and finds good cause for extending the 30-day time period for an indictment. It carries the printed name of 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 13).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-4-23-cr-00134-dkt-13-n-d-cal-47c7bfb5b9/, SHA-256 83823feb23df72aee7fe540a1533f014965765a5c033f42987b12b45a0d3b664.

Full text

                   Case 4:23-cr-00134-AMO Document 13 Filed 05/16/23 Page 1 of 1
                                                                                                       FILED
                                          United States District Court                                      MAY 16 2023
                                         NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA                               ^lERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
                                              OAKLAND DIVISION                                      NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CAUFORNIA

       United States of America,                               Case No. l-h-or               - AM O - 2.
                        Plaintiff, .                           STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
                                                               UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT


         '              Defendant(s).

For the reasons stated by the parties on the record on                    ,the court excludes time under the Speedy
Trial Act from                         to «/l                 and 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.
                     I8U.S.C. §3I6I(h)(7)(B)(i).

                 The case is so unusual or so complex, due to [check applicable reasons] the number of
                 defendants,        the nature ofthe prosecution, or       the existence of novel questions offact
                 or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or Ac trial
                 itself within the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3I61(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. § 316I(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. § 316I(h)(7)(B)(iv).

        _v/f^ailure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
                 necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
                     18 U.S.C. § 316I(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:               I
                                                                 Kandis A. Westmore
                                                                United States Magistrate Judge


        STIPULATED: ,                                                                 ,
                           Attorney for Defendant                Assistant United States Attorney

                                                                                                          V. 1/10/2019

File and source

File
13.pdf
Size
700,041 bytes
SHA-256
83823feb23df72aee7fe540a1533f014965765a5c033f42987b12b45a0d3b664
Our copy
13.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top