IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 27, 2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
OSCAR ERNESTO ROMERO-ROMERO, JR., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dated Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
On May 21, 2008, the Court held a status conference in the above-captioned case, at which time the Court set a briefing schedule and hearing date for defendant's motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to that briefing schedule, defendant was required to file his motion on June 11, 2008, the government was to file its opposition on July 2, 2008, and defendant was to file his reply on July 16, 2008. The hearing on the motion was scheduled for July 30, 2008. As required, defendant timely filed his motion on June 11, 2008. Since setting the briefing schedule, however, defense counsel has learned that she is required to attend a trial training course in Macon, Georgia from July 13-July 26. Given counsel's unavailability during much of month of July, and particularly given that defense counsel will be away when defendant's reply is due, the parties jointly request to amend the briefing schedule on the motion as follows: the government's opposition must be filed no later than July 23, 2008 and defendant's reply must be filed no later than August 13, 2008. The parties jointly request that the hearing on the motion be continued to August 27, 2008.
As the Motion has already been filed, time will be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act through the conclusion of the hearing on the motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
TAREK HELOU Assistant United States Attorney
JODI LINKER Assistant Federal Public Defender
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.