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. Do

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


February 3, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ANNIE DO AND, JINGHUI OU, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeremy Fogel United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT SAN JOSE VENUE

The undersigned parties respectfully request that the status hearing currently scheduled for February 4, 2009 be continued to March 4, 2009. The reason for the continuance is that defense counsel Stephen Naratil will be unavailable due to a trial in state court. In addition, the government is in the process of obtaining additional discovery to provide to Mr. Naratil. The parties also jointly request an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from February 4, 2009 to March 4, 2009. The parties agree and stipulate that an exclusion of time is appropriate based on the defendant's need for effective preparation and continuity of counsel.

SO STIPULATED.

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney

DATED: 02/02/2009

SUSAN KNIGHT Assistant United States Attorney

STEPHEN P. NARATIL Counsel for Ms. Do and Mr. Ou

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the status appearance scheduled for February 4, 2009 is continued to March 4, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from February 4, 2009 to March 4, 2009. The Court finds, based on the aforementioned reasons, 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. The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court therefore concludes that this exclusion of time should be made under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B)(iv).

SO ORDERED.

20090203

© 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.