Free Proposed Order - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cr-00564-RMW

Document 9

Filed 01/03/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (SCSBN 9990) United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN 163973) Chief, Criminal Division JEFFREY B. SCHENK (CASBN 234355) Assistant United States Attorney 150 Almaden Boulevard San Jose, California 95113 Telephone: (408) 535-2695 Facsimile: (408) 535-5066 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for the United States of America

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. MATTHEW BRADLEY MORRISON, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CR 07-70653 RS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM JANUARY 3, 2008 TO FEBRUARY 14, 2008 FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A))

On January 3, 2008 the parties appeared for a hearing before this Court. At that hearing, the government and defense requested an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act based upon the defense counsel's need to effectively prepare by reviewing discovery materials submitted by the government, the need to continue defense investigation and the need to jointly negotiate a resolution in this matter. At that time, the Court set the matter for a hearing on February 14, 2008. The parties stipulate that the time between January 3, 2008 and February 14, 2008 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161, and agree that the failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for

1

Case 5:08-cr-00564-RMW

Document 9

Filed 01/03/2008

Page 2 of 3

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

effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Finally, the parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public, and the defendant in a speedy trial and in the prompt disposition of criminal cases. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A).

DATED: January 3, 2008

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS United States Attorney ___/s/__________________________________ JEFFREY B. SCHENK Assistant United States Attorney

___/s/__________________________________ CYNTHIA LIE Attorney for Defendant

2

Case 5:08-cr-00564-RMW

Document 9

Filed 01/03/2008

Page 3 of 3

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 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED:

ORDER Based upon the stipulation of the parties, and for good cause shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the time between January 3, 2008 and February 14, 2008 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161. The court finds that the failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Furthermore, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and in the prompt disposition of criminal cases. The court therefore concludes that this exclusion of time should be made under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A).

_______________________________________ HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3