The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Charles R. Bryer United States District Court Judge
MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney 2 MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) 3 Chief, Criminal Division ANDREW M. SCOBLE (CABN 124940) MATTHEW L. McCARTHY (CABN 217871) Assistant United States Attorneys 450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36055 6 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-7249/6838 Fax: (415) 436-7234 E-Mail: email@example.com 8 firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Plaintiff
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING STATUS
CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING
TIME Current Date: April 25, 2012
Proposed Date: June 6, 2012
The above-captioned case is currently scheduled for a status conference Wednesday, April 25, 2012. However, the government will soon produce additional discovery pursuant to the Protective Order, and defense counsel will require additional time to review that discovery. In addition, counsel for the government will be unavailable on April 25, 2012.
Accordingly, the parties now stipulate and jointly request that the status conference currently set for April 25, 2012 be vacated, and that the Court set this matter for a status conference on June 6, 2012.
Further, the parties stipulate April 25, 2012 through June 6, 2012 for effective preparation of counsel. The exclusion of time is necessary in light of the time needed to produce and review the requested discovery. The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).
For good cause shown, the status conference now scheduled for April 25, 2012 is vacated. The matter shall be added to the Court's calendar on June 6, 2012 for setting of future dates.
In addition, for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an exclusion of time from April 25, 2012 through June 6, 2012 is warranted and 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 requested continuance would deny defense counsel the reasonable time 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).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...