UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
January 16, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JOHNNY RAY BURTON, AND DAWN MONIQUE MCCANN DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ) ORDER CHANGING HEARING DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME
The Court has set January 16, 2013 as the date for a further status hearing. The government has recently executed a search of the defendants' phones and will be producing the results of that search shortly. The parties request time to review this new discovery. With respect to timing, counsel for the defense and the government have multiple trials scheduled in the near future, and they request that the Court set the next status hearing for March 13, 2013, at which time the parties anticipate either changes of plea or motions / trial setting. The parties further request that time between these dates be excluded from any time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161, for the purpose of effective preparation and continuity of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 2
MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney DATED: January 15, 2013 /s/ 6 KEVIN J. BARRY Assistant United States Attorney 5 7 8 DATED: January 15, 2013 /s/ JULIA MEZHINSKY JAYNE Attorney for JOHNNY RAY BURTON 9 10 11 DATED: January 15, 2013 /s/ GEORGE BOISSEAU Attorney for DAWN MONIQUE MCAN
For the reasons stated above, the Court moves the next status hearing from January 16, 2013 to March 13, 2013 and finds that exclusion from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. 17 § 3161 of the period from January 16, 2013 through March 13, 2013, is warranted and that the 18 ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the 19 defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested 20 exclusion of time would deny counsel for the defendant and for the government the reasonable 21 time necessary for effective preparation and continuity of counsel, taking into account the 22 exercise of due diligence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 23 24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.