UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
March 26, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Judge Maxine Chesney United States District Judge
JOHN M. RUNFOLA SBN 96058 Attorney at Law 2 Pier 9, Suite 100 San Francisco, California 94101 3 Telephone: (415) 391-4243 Facsimile: (415) 391-5161 4 5 Attorney for Defendant MIMI WANG 6
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ) ORDER CHANGING HEARING DATE
Since the last calling of the case, the parties have engaged in disposition discussions regarding Ms. Wang's case. This continuance is sought by counsel for the defense in 19 20 order to provide additional time for effective preparation of counsel. Counsel for the defense 21 anticipates reaching a resolution of Ms. Wang's case in the next few weeks. To preserve the 22
Court's time, and to avoid the dislocation for the defendant that travel to Court entails, the parties 23 propose moving the hearing date. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court move 24 25 the next hearing from March 28, 2012 to April 18, 2012.
No party objects to the requested continuance.
The parties request that the period from March 28, 2012 through April 18, 2012 also be excluded from any time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The parties agree that 2 granting the exclusion would allow the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of 3 counsel and would preserve continuity of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The 4 5 parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time outweigh
the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). 7 8
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds good cause to change the date for the nexthearing from March 28, 2012 to April 18, 2012. The Court also finds that the exclusion from the 20 21 time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 of the period from March 28, 2012 through April 18, 2012 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best 23 interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A). The failure 24 to grant the requested exclusion of time would deny counsel for the defendant and for the 25 government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the 26 27 exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 2 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:March 27, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.