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. Pourmohamad

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 29, 2009

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HOUSHANG POURMOHAMAD, DEFENDANT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

The parties hereby stipulate that good cause exists to continue the scheduled January 23, 2009 sentencing hearing due to the illness of counsel until January 30, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.

To the extent that it is required that time be excluded, the parties further agree that time continues to be excludable under 18 USC § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B) as delay resulting from a continuance granted by a judge at the request of the defendant and his counsel, based upon her finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The reasons for this finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial results from consideration of factors set forth at 18 USC Section 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), insofar as the failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation for the hearing presently set, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. For this reason, the parties stipulate and request that the Court continue to exclude time between January 23, 2009 and and January 30, 2009 under the Speedy Trial Act due to the absence and unavailability of the defendant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

It is so stipulated.

Dated: January 23, 2009

It is so stipulated.

It is so ORDERED, and the Court makes the findings set forth in the above stipulation.

20090129

© 1992-2009 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.