UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
March 16, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
DANIEL A. PESCE, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Marilyn H. Patel United States District Court Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM JANUARY 25, 2010 TO MARCH 8, 2010
On January 25, 2010, the parties in this case appeared before the Honorable Marilyn H. Patel for a status appearance. At that time, the parties stipulated that time should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculation from January 25, 2010 to March 8, 2010 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).
IT IS SO STIPULATED:
JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney
ACADIA SENESE Special Assistant United States Attorney
ELIZABETH FALK Attorney for Daniel A. Pesce
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from January 25, 2010 to March 8, 2010, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.