UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
May 13, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SAMSUNG SDI COMPANY, LTD.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable William H. Alsup United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ) ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
counsel for the Government appeared before Judge William H. Alsup for a status hearing. After 4 colloquy with the Court, SDI requested time to decide whether to set the case for trial or plead 5 guilty. At the request of the parties, the Court set a hearing date of May 17, 2011 at 2 p.m. for a 6 status hearing. Counsel for SDI and the Government hereby stipulate to an exclusion of time 7 under the Speedy Trial Act, from May 10, 2011 to May 17, 2011 for the reasons set forth in the 8 below order.
On May 10, 2011, counsel for defendant Samsung SDI Company, Ltd. ("SDI") and
DATED: May 12, 2011 GARY HALLING JAMES McGINNIS Attorney for Defendants SAMSUNG SDI COMPANY, LTD. DATED: May 12, 201116 LIDIA MAHER MAY LEE HEYE TAI S. MILDER Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice
The Court hereby orders the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from May 10, 2011 to May 17, 2011 based on the following reasons: SDI and the Government have stipulated 23 to an exclusion of time because of "delay resulting from consideration by the court of a proposed 24 plea agreement to be entered into by the defendant and the attorney for the Government." See 18 25 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(G). In addition, the failure to grant such a continuance would deny counsel 26 for the defendant and the attorneys for the Government the reasonable time necessary for 27 effective preparation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and B(iv). 28 The Court finds that the exclusion of time is appropriate because of the Court's consideration of a proposed plea agreement and that the failure to grant the requested 3 continuance would unreasonably deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective 4 preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Furthermore, the Court finds that 5 the ends of justice would be served by excluding the proposed time period under the Speedy Trial Act. These ends outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy 7 trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
For the reasons stated, the Court finds that the time period from May 10, 2011 to May 17, 2011 should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 10 3161(h)(7)(A).
IT IS SO ORDERED
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.