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 v. Esquivel

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 12, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
FERNANDO ALBERTO GUZMAN ESQUIVEL, Defendant.

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612), United States Attorney, J. DOUGLAS WILSON (DCBN 412811), Chief, Criminal Division, JANAKI GANDHI (CABN 272246), Special Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for the United States of America.

JODI LINKER, Attorney for Defendant, Fernando Alberto Guzman Esquivel.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3161

JON A. TIGAR, District Judge.

On August 9, 2013, the parties in this case appeared before the Court. At that time, defense counsel represented that additional time would be required to review discovery provided by the government and reach a possible resolution in the case with the government. As a result, the Court set the matter to August 20, 2013.

The parties have agreed to exclude the period of time between August 9, 2013, and August 20, 2013, from any time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The parties agreed that granting the exclusion would allow the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties also agreed 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). At the hearing, the Court made findings consistent with this agreement. SO STIPULATED:

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above and at the August 9, 2013 hearing, the Court finds that the exclusion from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 of the period from August 9, 2013, and August 20, 2013, 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. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Denying the requested exclusion of time would deprive the parties of the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.