UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
November 30, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
HELEN JEAN SINGH,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Laurel Beeler U.S. Magistrate Judge
EDWIN PRATHER, SBN 190536 LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN PRATHER 461 Bush Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 881-7774 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Defendant HELEN JEAN SINGH
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE 13 CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE TO DECEMBER 8, 2011 AND WAIVER OF TIME FOR 14 PRELIMINARY HEARING DATE AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT 16
On November 2, 2011, the parties appeared before the Court for a detention hearing. At 19 the conclusion of the hearing, Ms. Singh was released from custody under certain terms and 20 conditions and a status conference was set for December 2, 2011. 21 Ms. Singhʼs counsel is unavailable on December 2, 2011, due to his travel out of the 22 jurisdiction on another matter. As such, the parties request and stipulate that the Court 23 continue Ms. Singhʼs status conference to December 8, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. 24
In continuing the matter to December 8, 2011, Ms. Singh waives time for a preliminary 25 hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c). Ms. Singh has previously waived her right to a preliminary hearing and the parties agree that -- taking into account the public interest 2 in the prompt disposition of criminal cases -- good cause exists for this extension. 3
The parties also stipulate and move the Court for an Order excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), through December 8, 2011. The parties previously 5 agreed to toll and to waive time, for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, through December 2, 6 2011. The parties agree and stipulate that the delay resulting from this continuance serves the 7 ends of justice and that such action outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant 8 in a speedy trial. Defense counsel continues to investigate this case and review pre-indictment 9 discovery. The parties therefore stipulate that an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act 10 for continuity of counsel and effective preparation of counsel is warranted pursuant to 18 11 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). 12
this case is continued to December 8, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. 4
5 the status conference to December 8, 2011, serves the ends of justice and that such action 6 outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Specifically, the 7 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING and per the partiesʼ stipulation, the status conference in
The Court finds that based on the record and the stipulation above, that the continue of Court finds that denying such a continuance would deny the defendant of continuity of counsel 8 and deny defense counsel reasonable time for effective preparation, taking into account the 9 exercise of due diligence. Therefore, the period of time between December 2, 2011, and December 8, 2011, shall be excluded for Speedy Trial Act purposes. 11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.