Stipulated Order Excluding under the Speedy Trial Act — No. 4:24-cr-00283 (Dkt. 3, N.D. Cal.)

Summary

A one-page form Stipulated Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act, Document 3, filed 06/05/24 in Case 4:24-cr-00283-AMO in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, signed by a United States magistrate judge and stipulated by counsel for both sides. For reasons stated on the record, the court excludes time under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), finding that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, on the form's listed § 3161(h)(7)(B) factors. With the defendant's consent it also finds good cause to extend the preliminary hearing under Rule 5.1 and the 30-day indictment period under § 3161(b). The dates and the judge's surname are illegible in the scan.

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 District Court
                   Case 4:24-cr-00283-AMO    Document 3 Filed 06/05/24 Page 1 of 1
                                   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                                             OAKLAND DIVISION


       United States of America,                             Case No.                             ''

                       Plaintiff,                            STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING
                  V.                                         UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT


                       Defendant(s).

For the reasons stated by th parties on the record on   OU'lcfelz'l the court excludes time un^er^lK^e'
Trial Act from    OijQityo          to   m         2^      and finds that the ends ofjustice served by the
continuance outweigh the best interest of the publ c and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A). The court m^es 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)CB)(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. § 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:                5,
                                                             Kandis
                                                             Unitei'Sl^osMagistehfe Judge

       STIPULATED:
                        Attorney for Defendant               Assis       nited States Attorney


                                                                                                       V. 1/10/2019


File and source

File

3.pdf

Size

431,336 bytes

SHA-256

2c9eeb1f209ee3e478896eade378985682734d9986cf262814e2ced8022df258

Our copy

3.pdf

Original

No public link identified.