UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
August 21, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RICHARD KEITH GOLSTON,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CHANGING HEARING DATE
AND EXCLUDING TIME
The Court has set August 21, 2012 as the date for a preliminary hearing or arraignment.
The parties hereby stipulate to move the preliminary hearing or arraignment date to September 27, 2012, and they request that the Court extend the time limits provided by Federal 23 Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 3161. This extension of time is necessary for 24 the parties to explore possible pre-indictment resolution, to produce and to receive initial 25 discovery, and for effective preparation of counsel. 26
Pursuant to Rule 5.1(d), the defendant and the government consent to the extension of 27 time, and the parties represent that good cause exists for this extension, including the effective preparation of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). For the same reasons, the parties also request that the Court exclude from the time limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3161 the period from the date of this Order through September 27, 2012. The 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).
SO STIPULATED: MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney DATED: August 20, 2012 /s/ 10 KEVIN J. BARRY Assistant United States Attorney DATED: August 20, 2012 /s/ ELIZABETH M. FALK Attorney for RICHARD GOLSTON
For the reasons stated above, the Court sets September 27, 2012, as the date for the arraignment or preliminary hearing. The Court finds that extension of time limits applicable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c) from the date of this Order through September 27, 2012, is warranted; that exclusion of this period from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161is warranted; that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in the prompt disposition of this criminal case; and that the failure to grant the requested exclusion of time would deny counsel for the defendant and for the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and continuity of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
United States Magistrate Judge N N D. Laporte
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.