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. Alomari

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION


November 12, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FAISAL MOHAMED KAID ALOMARI DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donna Ryu United States Magistrate Judge

STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

For the reasons stated by the parties on the record on November 2, 2010, the Court excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from November 2, 2010, to January 10, 2011, and finds that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The Court makes this finding and bases this continuance on the following factor(s):

Failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice. See 8 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i).

The case is so unusual or so complex, due to [check applicable reasons] the number of defendants, _____ the nature of the prosecution, or _____ the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or the trial itself within the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

Failure to grant a continuance would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel, given counsel's other scheduled case commitments, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

x Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101112

© 1992-2010 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.