Free Stipulation - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cr-00341-RMW

Document 12

Filed 05/14/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CASBN 44332) United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CASBN 163973) Chief, Criminal Division JOSEPH A. FAZIOLI (ILSBN 6273413) Assistant United States Attorney 150 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 900 San Jose, California 95113 Telephone: (408) 535-5061 Facsimile: (408) 535-5081 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for the United States

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 SERGIO RAMOS-HINOJOSA, 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CR 07-00215 JF STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY HEARING/ARRAIGNMENT AND EXCLUDING TIME FROM RULE 5.1 AND THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A)) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

This matter is scheduled before the Court for preliminary hearing or arraignment on May 15, 2008. Due the parties' on-going discussions regarding pre-charge negotiation and discovery in this case, the parties respectfully request that defendant's preliminary hearing or arraignment be continued until May 22, 2008. The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows: 1. 2. Defendant's preliminary hearing or arraignment is continued to May 22, 2008. Time is excluded under Rule 5.1 from May 15, 2008 to May 22, 2008 in order to

allow defense counsel time to confer with her client and to conduct additional pre-charge investigation. The parties agree that the continuance is proper under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. § 3060.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ] ORDER CR 07-00215 JF

Case 5:08-cr-00341-RMW

Document 12

Filed 05/14/2008

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

2.

The time between May 15, 2008 and May 22, 2008 is excluded under the Speedy

Trial Act. The parties agree 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. 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). IT IS SO STIPULATED: DATED:____5/13/08________ ________/s/___________________ LARA VINNARD Attorney for Defendant Ramos-Hinojosa

DATED:____5/14/08________

________/s/___________________ JOSEPH A. FAZIOLI Assistant United States Attorney

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED:__________________ _____________________________ PATRICIA TRUMBULL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ] ORDER CR 3-04-30420 EDL