Free Stipulation - District Court of California - California


File Size: 33.0 kB
Pages: 2
Date: June 23, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 501 Words, 3,202 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/205840/10.pdf

Download Stipulation - District Court of California ( 33.0 kB)


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

Document 10

Filed 06/23/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JOSEPH P. 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 19, 2008, the undersigned parties appeared before the Court for a identification of counsel. The Court released Assistant Federal Public Defender Cynthia Lie, and Eduardo Paredes made an appearance on behalf of the defendant. The parties then requested that an arraignment be scheduled for July 25, 2008 in order to afford Mr. Paredes an opportunity to review the discovery in the case and consult with the defendant. In addition, the government informed the Court that it has additional discovery to provide to Mr. Paredes. The defendant, through Mr. Paredes, agreed to waive time under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Speedy Trial Act from June 19, 2008 to July 25, 2008. The parties agree and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE OLIVARES-MORALES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 08-70270 PVT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER RULE 5 AND THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

SAN JOSE VENUE

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

1

Case 5:08-cr-00519-PVT

Document 10

Filed 06/23/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

stipulate that an exclusion of time is appropriate based on the defendant's need for effective preparation of counsel. SO STIPULATED: JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney _________/s/__________________________ SUSAN KNIGHT Assistant United States Attorney _________/s/___________________________ EDUARDO A. PAREDES Counsel for Mr. Olivares-Morales

DATED: 6/19/08

DATED: 6/19/08 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 the preliminary hearing or arraignment is continued to July 25, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. 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 19, 2008 through July 25, 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.

________________________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG United States Magistrate Judge

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

2