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 of America v. Craig Lipton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


November 28, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CRAIG LIPTON,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph C. Spero United States Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM NOVEMBER 22, 2011 TO DECEMBER 14, 2011

On November 22, 2011, the parties in this matter appeared before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for an initial appearance and arraignment. During this 23 appearance, the parties stipulated that time should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act 24 calculations from November 22, 2011 until December 14, 2011 for effective preparation of 25 counsel. The parties represented that granting the continuance was for the reasonable time 26 necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the exercise of due 27 diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (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 defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. 3 § 3161(h)(7)(A). 4

SO STIPULATED:

Ted W. Cassman David J. Ward Arguedas, Cassman & Headley, LLP Jeane Hamilton Counsel for Defendant Craig Lipton Albert B. Sambat Christina M. Wheeler Manish Kumar Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division

As the Court found on November 22, 2011, and for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an exclusion of time from November 22, 2011 to December 14, 2011, is warranted and 15 that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and 16 the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the 17 requested continuance would deny the defendant and deny defense counsel the reasonable time 18 19 necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

SO ORDERED.

C. Spero Joseph Judge

20111128

© 1992-2011 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.