UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
December 7, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
TARA DENISE BONELLI, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward J. Davila United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
The undersigned parties respectfully request that the status conference in the above- 20 captioned case be continued from December 10, 2012 to December 17, 2012. The reason for the 21 continuance is that on December 6, 2012, Ms. Bonelli received urgent medical treatment at 22 Dominican Hospital in Santa Cruz, California. Ms. Bonelli's medical condition required that the 23 parties continue for a brief time their final settlement conference, which was scheduled for 24 December 7, 2012 before Magistrate Judge Beeler. The parties intend to conduct their final 25 settlement conference the week of December 10-14, 2012. 26
The parties also request an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from December 10, 2012 through December 17, 2012. The parties agree and stipulate that an exclusion of time is appropriate based on the defendant's need for effective preparation of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 2 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 3
SO STIPULATED: MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney DATED: 12/07/12 /s/ MATTHEW A. PARRELLA SUSAN KNIGHT Assistant United States Attorneys DATED: 12/07/12 /s/ CATHERINE E. MORENO Counsel for Ms. Bonelli
Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the status hearing 12 scheduled for December 10, 2012 is continued to December 17, 2012.
The Court FURTHER ORDERS that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from December 10, 2012 through December 17, 2012. The Court finds, based on the aforementioned 15 reasons, that the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best 16 interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The failure to grant the requested 17 continuance would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, 18 taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 19
The Court therefore concludes that this exclusion of time should be made under the 18. U.S.C. 20 §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). 21
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.