UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
June 29, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JASON LEE, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Vaughn R. Walker Chief Judge, United States District Court
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A))
With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of defendant Jason Lee, the Court enters this order documenting defendant's exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1), from May 14, 2009, to September 14, 2009. The parties agree, and the 22 Court finds and holds, as follows:
1. Defendant agreed to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny defendant's counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, in this case. The parties agree that they need this period of time in order to prepare adequately to try the case beginning on September 14.
2. Given these circumstances, the Court found that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from May 14, 2009, to September 14, 2009, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Id. at § 3161(h)(8)(A).
3. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, at the hearing on May 14, 2009, the Court ordered that the period from April 30, 2009, to May 14, 2009, be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: May 30, 2009
CLAIRE LEARY Attorney for Defendant
DATED: May 18, 2009
ANDREW P. CAPUTO Assistant United States Attorney
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.