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. Schlocker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


May 26, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SHERYL A. SCHLOCKER, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM APRIL 28, 2009, TO JUNE 10, 2009

On April 28, 2009, the parties in this case appeared before the Honorable Bernard Zimmerman for an initial appearance. At that time, the parties stipulated that time should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculations from April 28, 2009, to June 10, 2009 for effective preparation of defense counsel. The parties represented that granting the continuance was for the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (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 defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney

DATED: 05/07/2009

WENDY THOMAS Special Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: 05/11/2009

EAN VIZZI Attorney for Sheryl A. Schlocker

As the Court found on April 28, 2009, and for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an exclusion of time between April 28, 2009, to June 10, 2009, is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweighs the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defendant and 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)(7)(B)(iv).

SO ORDERED.

20090526

© 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.