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. Sergio Contreras

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


April 7, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SERGIO CONTRERAS,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward J. Davila United States District Court Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM APRIL 23, 2012 THROUGH MAY 7, 2012, 16 FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. § 17 3161(h)(7)(A),(B))

A status hearing is currently set for April 23, 2012, on the Court's calendar. Due to on-21 going, final discussions between counsel about a potential resolution of the matter, the parties 22 have agreed to seek to move the hearing date to May 7, 2012, if that date is available to the 23 Court. 24 The United States hereby submits this written request for an order finding that said time 25 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, in that the ends of justice are served 26 by taking such action and outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy 27 trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably 28 1 deny counsel for the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking 2 into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 3 4 DATED: April 18, 2012 MELINDA HAAG 5 United States Attorney 6 _________/s/________________ 7 EUMI L. CHOI Assistant United States Attorney 8 _________/s/_______________ 9 MANUEL ARAUJO Attorney for Defendant

10 11 ORDER

12 Based upon the stipulation of the parties, and for good cause shown, the Court HEREBY 13 ORDERS that the time from April 23, 2012, through May 7, 2012, is excluded under the Speedy 14 Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The Court finds that the ends of justice are served by taking such 15 action and outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 16 3161(h)(7)(A). The failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny counsel for 17 defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the 18 exercise of due diligence. The Court therefore concludes that this exclusion of time should be 19 made under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23

20120407

© 1992-2012 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.