Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Vian

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


April 23, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FRANCISCO ROMERO VIAN, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Joseph C. Spero

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM MARCH 28, 2008 THROUGH APRIL 24, 2008

On March 28, 2008, the parties in this case appeared before the Court for an initial 21 appearance on the criminal complaint. The defendant was released on a $50,000, unsecured 22 personal recognizance bond. At that time, and the parties requested and the Court agreed to set 23 the preliminary hearing for April 24, 2008. The parties further stipulated that pursuant to 24 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) 5.1(d), the time limits set forth in FRCP 5.1(c) be 25 excluded from March 28, 2008 through April 24, 2008. The parties agree that -- taking into 26 account the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases -- good cause exists for this 27 extension. Defendant also agrees to exclude for this period of time any time limits applicable 28 under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161. The parties represented that granting the continuance was the reasonable time necessary for continuity of defense counsel and effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. 3 § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). The parties also agreed that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 5 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an exclusion of time from March 28, 2008 through April 24, 2008 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(8)(A); FRCP 5.1(d). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the defendant of continuity of counsel and would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

20080423

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.