UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
July 20, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Hon. Maxine M. Chesney United States District Court Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING FROM 15 JULY 21, 2010 TO AUGUST 11, 2010 AT 2:30 PM
On June 23, 2010, the defendant, Tien Vo, appeared before the Court for a status hearing.
The matter is currently set before the Court for a hearing on July 21, 2010 at 2:30 p.m., however because the defense counsel is not able to be present for the July 21 hearing, the parties request the matter be continued to August 11, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. The defendant represents, and the government agrees, that this time is necessary for the continuity of counsel and effective preparation and is properly excluded from the speedy trial calculations. See 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. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
The hearing previously scheduled for July 21, 2010 is hereby continued to August 11, 2010 13 at 2:30 p.m. before the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney. The Court also finds that an exclusion of time between July 21, 2010 through August 11, 2010 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for the continuity of counsel and effective 18 preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.