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. Chipres-Madriz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


October 28, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FRANCISCO CHIPRES-MADRIZ, (A/K/A RAMIRO MARTINEZ,) A/K/A ROBERTO BECERRA, A/K/A ROBERTO MONTES, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME BETWEEN OCTOBER 19, 2009 AND NOVEMBER 16, 2009 FROM CALCULATIONS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT U.S.C. § 3161

The defendant, Francisco Chipres-Madriz, represented by Elizabeth Falk, Assistant Federal Public Defender, and the government, represented by Cynthia M. Frey, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared before this Court on October 19, 2009 for a status conference. At the hearing. this Court set the a motion schedule requiring that the defendant's proposed motion be filed on November 16, 2009 and that the motion will be heard on December 14, 2009.

The parties agreed that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act between October 19, 2009 and November 16, 2009 for purposes of continuity of and effective preparation of counsel, in order to provide defense counsel with adequate time to review additional discovery and consult with the defendant.

In addition, the defendant agrees to exclude for this period of time any time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The parties represent that granting the continuance, in order to provide defense counsel with adequate time to review the discovery and consult with the defendant, is necessary for continuity of defense counsel and effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney

DATED: October 27, 2009/

CYNTHIA M. FREY Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: October 27, 2009

ELIZABETH FALK Attorney for FRANCISCO CHIPRES-MADRIZ

Based upon the representation of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court finds that failing to exclude the time between October 19, 2009 and November 16, 2009 would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel and would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the time between October 19, 2009 and November 16, 2009 from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time between October 19, 2009 and November 16, 2009 shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED

20091028

© 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.