UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
February 19, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
PETER CHAN, KAM SETO, AND, ZHIJIAN WU DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maxine M. Chesney United States District Court Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE-SCHEDULING PARTIES' APPEARANCE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
The parties in the above captioned case are next set to appear before this Court on February 24, 2010, at 2:30 P.M. The defendants Peter Chan, Kam Seto, and Zhijian Wu, by and through their respective counsel, and the United States do hereby stipulate and agree, and do jointly request that the Court (1) vacate the February 24, 2010, hearing date; (2) re-schedule the parties' next appearance for March 17, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.; and, (3) exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, from February 24, 2010, to March 17, 2010.
This case involves over six thousand pages of discovery. Five thousand pages of the discovery were produced in January 2010. This request for re-scheduling is made in order to afford time for defense investigation and for further negotiations with the United States.
The parties request that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act based on the need for effective preparation of defense counsel.
Dated: February 18, 2010
MARK ROSENBUSH Attorney for Defendant KAM SETO
GEORGE COTSIRILOS, JR. Attorney for Defendant PETER CHAN
KYLE F. WALDINGER Assistant United States Attorney
For the reasons set forth in the parties' stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) the February 24, 2010, hearing date be vacated and (2) the parties' next appearance be re-scheduled for March 17, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. The Court further finds that, based on information set forth in the parties' stipulation, and taking into account the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases, granting the continuance to March 17, 2010, is necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Given these circumstances, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from February 24, 2010, to March 17, 2010, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial and, therefore, FURTHER ORDERS that period of time be excluded from calculations under the Speedy Trial Act. Id. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
Dated: February _____ , 2010
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.