UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
January 4, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
STEVE MALONE, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)
With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of defendant Steve Malone, the Court enters this order documenting defendant's exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1), from December 14, 2009, to February 16, 2010. The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:
1. Defendant agreed to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act. His counsel requires time in order to prepare the case for a possible trial. His counsel will also be unavailable for three weeks during the holiday season. Accordingly, 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, and also would unreasonably deny defendant continuity of counsel.
2. Given these circumstances, the Court found that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from December 14, 2009, to February 16, 2010, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Id. at § 3161(h)(7)(A).
3. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, at the hearing on December 14, 2009, the Court ordered that the period from December 14, 2009, to February 16, 2010, be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: December 18, 2009
RONALD C. TYLER Attorney for Defendant
DATED: December 15, 2009
ANDREW P. CAPUTO Assistant United States Attorney
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.