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. Knight

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

January 7, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
SHAMEKA KNIGHT, ET AL., Defendants.

MELINDA HAAG, (CABN 132612) United States Attorney, J. DOUGLAS WILSON, (DCBN 412811) Chief, Criminal Division, NATALIE LEE, (CABN 277362) Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for the United States of America.

GARRICK LEW, Attorney for Shameka Knight.

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

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE, Magistrate Judge.

On January 6, 2014, the parties had a detention hearing before the Court. The Court ordered detention, finding that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community. The Court also scheduled the defendant's initial appearance before the District Court for January 16, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. During the detention hearing, the parties explained to the Court that discovery had been provided and that defense counsel would review the discovery. Therefore, the parties requested, and the Court ordered, that the time between January 6, 2014 and January 16, 2014, be excluded from the running of the speedy trial clock for effective preparation of counsel, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties agree that, taking into account the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases, good cause exists for this extension. The parties also agreed that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the exclusion of time from January 6, 2014 to January 16, 2014 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). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the defendant effective preparation of counsel and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

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.