Free Stipulation - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cr-00516-MMC

Document 10

Filed 08/07/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332) United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973) Chief, Criminal Division TAREK J. HELOU (CABN 218225) Assistant United States Attorney 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-7071 Facsimile: (415) 436-7234 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HONG WEIYAN, Defendant.

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CR No. 08-516 MMC STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3161

On August 4, 2008, the parties in this case appeared before the Court for the defendant's arraignment. At the arraignment, the parties requested that the Court exclude all time under the Speedy Trial Act from August 4, 2008 through August 27, 2008, because the parties in this case needed additional time to finalize a plea agreement. The parties agree that the length of the continuance is the reasonable time necessary for preparation of defense counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Excluding Time CR 08-516 MM C

1

Case 3:08-cr-00516-MMC

Document 10

Filed 08/07/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

SO STIPULATED: JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney

DATED: August 6, 2008

/s/ TAREK J. HELOU Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: August 6, 2008

/s/ RONALD TYLER Attorney for Defendant Hong Weiyan

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that exclusion of time from August 4, 2008 through August 27, 2008 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the parties effective preparation of counsel, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

SO ORDERED.

DATED:______________

________________________________________ THE HONORABLE BERNARD ZIMMERMAN United States Magistrate Judge

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Excluding Time CR 08-516 MM C

2