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. Patrick Campion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


December 9, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PATRICK CAMPION,
DEFENDANT.

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

CRB (JS) STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM NOVEMBER 29, 2011 TO JANUARY 18, 2012

On November 29, 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 29, 2011 until January 18, 2012 for effective preparation of counsel. 25

The parties represented that granting the continuance was for the reasonable time necessary for 26 effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 27 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 2 outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. 3 § 3161(h)(7)(A). 4

SO STIPULATED: 5

Julia Mezhinsky Jayne David J. Ward Campbell & Jayne LLP Jeane Hamilton 7

Counsel for Defendant Patrick Campion Albert B. Sambat 8

Christina M. Wheeler Manish Kumar

Trial Attorneys

United States Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

As the Court found on November 29, 2011, and for the reasons stated above, the Court 13 finds that an exclusion of time from November 29, 2011 to January 18, 2012, is warranted and 14 15 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 17 requested continuance would deny the defendant and deny defense counsel the reasonable time 18 necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would 19 result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 20 21 22

SO ORDERED.

N Joseph Spero Judge

20111209

© 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.