Free Stipulation - District Court of California - California


File Size: 32.9 kB
Pages: 2
Date: June 2, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 499 Words, 3,220 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/205840/7.pdf

Download Stipulation - District Court of California ( 32.9 kB)


Preview Stipulation - District Court of California
Case 5:08-cr-00519-PVT

Document 7

Filed 06/02/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JOSEPH R. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332) United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN 163973) Chief, Criminal Division SUSAN KNIGHT (CSBN 209013) Assistant United States Attorney 150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900 San Jose, California 95113 Telephone: (408) 535-5056 FAX: (408) 535-5066 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN JOSE DIVISION 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On June 2, 2008, the undersigned parties appeared before the Court for an arraignment. At the hearing, Assistant Federal Public Defender Cynthia informed the Court that the defendant has hired private counsel, who is in the process of submitting his application to be admitted to practice in the Northern District of California. Therefore, the parties jointly requested that the Court schedule an identification of counsel hearing for June 19, 2008. In addition, Assistant United States Attorney Susan Knight requested an exclusion of time under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Speedy Trial Act from June 2, 2008 and June 19, 2008. The defendant, through AFPD Lie, agreed to the exclusion. The parties agree and stipulate that UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE OLIVARES-MORALES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 08-70270 PVT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

SAN JOSE VENUE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ] ORDER NO . 08-70270 PVT

1

Case 5:08-cr-00519-PVT

Document 7

Filed 06/02/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

an exclusion of time is appropriate based on the defendant's need for continuity and effective preparation of counsel. SO STIPULATED: JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney _________/s/__________________________ SUSAN KNIGHT Assistant United States Attorney _________/s/___________________________ CYNTHIA C. LIE Assistant Federal Public Defender

DATED: 6/2/08

DATED: 6/2/08 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED:______________

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that a hearing for identification of counsel is scheduled for June 19, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Richard Seeborg. Good cause is shown and the continuance is proper under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. § 3060. For good cause shown, the Court FURTHER ORDERS that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from June 2, 2008 to June 19, 2008. The Court finds, based on the aforementioned reasons, 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. The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court therefore concludes that this exclusion of time should be made under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B)(iv). SO ORDERED.

________________________________________ PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ] ORDER NO . 08-70270 PVT

2