Free Stipulation - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-mj-70382-MRGD

Document 6

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332) United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163173) Chief, Criminal Division DANIEL R. KALEBA (CABN 223789) Assistant United States Attorney 150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900 San Jose, California 95113 Telephone: (408) 535-5061 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 July 10, 2008, defendant JUAN MANUEL SILVA-QUESADA appeared before the Court for a preliminary hearing. At the appearance, defendant waived time and requested discovery from the United States. The Court set the matter for arraignment before Judge Trumbull on August 7, 2008. Counsel for the United States requested an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from July 10, 2008 to August 7, 2008. The defendant, through counsel, agreed to the exclusion. // // // // UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN MANUEL SILVA-QUESADA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 08-70382 RS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME SAN JOSE VENUE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ] ORDER NO . 08-70382 RS

1

Case 5:08-mj-70382-MRGD

Document 6

Filed 07/24/2008

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

The undersigned parties agree and stipulate that an exclusion of time is appropriate based on the defendant's need for continuity of counsel and effective preparation.

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney /s/ DANIEL R. KALEBA Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: 7/22/08

DATED: 7/23/08

/s/ RICHARD POINTER Counsel to Defendant

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from July 10, 2008 to August 7, 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 and continuity, 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.

DATED:______________

________________________________________ HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ] ORDER NO . 08-70382 RS

2