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. Eagle Eyes Traffic Industrial Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


July 31, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
EAGLE EYES TRAFFIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.;
E-LITE AUTOMOTIVE, INC.; HOMY HONG-MING HSU; AND YU-CHU LIN, AKA DAVID LIN,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard Seeborg United States District Court Judge

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 )OCTOBER 29, 2012 TO

The defendant Homy Hong-Ming Hsu, represented by Becky Walker James, and the 23 defendants Eagle Eyes Traffic Industrial Co., Ltd. ("Eagle Eyes") and E-Lite Automotive, Inc. 24

("E-Lite"), represented by Kenneth Julian, appeared before Judge Richard Seeborg on July 24, 25

2012 and requested a trial continuance to allow for further time to prepare for trial. At the 26 conclusion of the hearing, the Court requested letters from the parties addressing such a possible 27 continuance, among other things. Thereafter, the Court on July 27, 2012 continued the trial date 28 from September 24, 2012 to October 29, 2012.

2 request to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act between September 24, 2012 and October 29, 3 2012, for effective preparation of counsel to allow the parties more time to meet and confer 4 regarding stipulated translations and for the defendants to review discovery and to conduct 5 necessary investigation to prepare for trial. 6

The government and the defendants Mr. Hsu, Eagle Eyes, and E-Lite have made a joint

Based upon the representation of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court finds that

7 failing to exclude the time between September 24, 2012 and October 29, 2012 would 8 unreasonably deny the defendants and counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective 9 preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B). 10

September 24, 2012 and October 29, 2012 from computation under the Speedy Trial Act 12 outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 13

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time between September 24, 2012 and 15 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). 17 18 19

The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the time between 3161(h)(7)(A). 14

October 29, 2012 shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 16

DATED: , 2012

20120731

© 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.