Free Proposed Order - District Court of California - California


File Size: 10.8 kB
Pages: 2
Date: August 21, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 369 Words, 2,256 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/194655/22.pdf

Download Proposed Order - District Court of California ( 10.8 kB)


Preview Proposed Order - District Court of California
Case 5:07-cr-00501-JF

Document 22

Filed 08/21/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (SC 9990) United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973) Chief, Criminal Division TRACIE L. BROWN (CABN 184339) JONATHAN D. SCHMIDT (CABN 230646) Assistant United States Attorneys 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 436­6767 JOHN GIBBS (VABN 40380) JOANNA BALTES (CABN 205061) DOJ Trial Attorneys 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 2714 Washington, D.C. 20350 Telephone: (202) 353-3469 (202) 307-6326 Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14

SAN JOSE DIVISION
15 16

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
17

Plaintiff,
18

v.
19 20 21 22

RAHMAT ABDHIR et al Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CR-07-00501-JF (HRL) [Proposed] ORDER TO EXCLUDE TIME FROM AUGUST 14, 2007 TO AUGUST 29, 2007

The parties appeared before The Honorable Howard R. Lloyd, United States
23

Magistrate Judge on August 14, 2007. At that hearing, the next court date was set for
24

August 29, 2007. The United States requested, the defendant agreed and the Court
25

ordered that the time between August 14, 2007, and August 29, 2007, shall be excluded
26

from computing the time within which the trial must commence. The grounds for this
27

exclusion is that the parties need time to exchange and review discovery. Failure to grant
28 Proposed ORDER Excluding Time United States v. Abdhir et al., CR 07- 00501 JF

Case 5:07-cr-00501-JF

Document 22

Filed 08/21/2007

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

such a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant and the government continuity of counsel and would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B)(iv). Further the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:_________________

______________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge

Proposed ORDER Excluding Time United States v. Abdhir et al., CR 07- 00501 JF 2