United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
STIPULATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR (1) CONTINUANCE OF
HEARING DATE AND (2) FINDINGS OF EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIOD
PURSUANT TO SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
KANDIS
A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff
United States of America, by and through its counsel of
record, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
of California and Assistant United States Attorney Garth
Hire, and defendant Anthony Richard Torres (TORRES), by and
through his counsel of record, Assistant Federal Public
Defender John Paul Reichmuth, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. On
December 14, 2015, the Honorable Donna M. Ryu signed a
federal criminal complaint charging defendant with being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1). On February 11, 2016, defendant made his initial
appearance and was arraigned on the criminal complaint. On
February 11, 2016, defendant waived his right to a
preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
5.
2. A
hearing for arraignment on indictment or information is
presently set before this Court at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, June
24, 2016.
3. The
government has produced over 200 pages of discovery relating
to defendant's arrest and criminal history. The
government and defendant are exploring the potential for a
pre-indictment disposition. Counsel for defendant TORRES
requires additional time to obtain and review discovery and
in light of that discovery to discuss and negotiate a
potential pre-indictment disposition for defendant or to file
pre-indictment motions.
4.
Thus, counsel for defendant TORRES represents that additional
time is necessary to confer with defendant, conduct and
complete an independent investigation of the case, conduct
and complete additional legal research including for
potential pre-indictment and/or pre-trial motions, review the
discovery already produced and soon to be produced, as well
as potential evidence in the case, and prepare for trial in
the event that a pre-indictment resolution does not occur.
Defense counsel represents that failure to grant the
continuance would deny him reasonable time necessary for
effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of
due diligence. The parties agree that the requested
continuance is not based on congestion of the Court's
calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of the
attorney for the government or the defense, or failure on the
part of the attorney for the government to obtain available
witnesses.
5. For
purposes of computing the date under the Speedy Trial Act by
which defendant must be charged by indictment or information,
the parties agree that the time period of June 24, 2016, to
July 12, 2016, inclusive, should be excluded pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i) and (h)(7)(B)(iv)
because the delay results from a continuance granted by the
Court at defendant's request, without government
objection, on the basis of the Court's finding that: (i)
the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the
best interest of the public and defendant in the filing of an
information or indictment within the period specified in 18
U.S.C. § 3161(b); and (ii) failure to grant the continuance
would unreasonably deny defense counsel the reasonable time
necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the
exercise of due diligence.
6.
Nothing in this stipulation shall preclude a finding that
other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that
additional time periods be excluded from the period within
which an information or indictment must be filed.
IT IS
SO STIPULATED.
[PROPOSED]
ORDER
The
Court has read and considered the Stipulation Regarding
Request for (1) Continuance of Hearing Date and (2) Findings
of Excludable Time Period Pursuant to Speedy Trial Act, filed
by the parties in this matter. The Court hereby finds that
the Stipulation, which this Court incorporates by reference
into this Order, demonstrates facts that support a
continuance in this matter, and provides good cause for a
finding of excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act,
18 U.S.C. § 3161.
The
Court further finds that: (i) the ends of justice served by
the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and
defendant in the filing of an information or indictment
within the time period set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b); and
(ii) failure to grant the continuance would unreasonably deny
defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective
preparation, taking into account the exercise of due
diligence.
THEREFORE,
FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN:
The
hearing for arraignment on information or indictment in this
matter scheduled for June 24, 2016, is continued to 9:30 a.m.
on Tuesday, July 12, 2016, before the Honorable Kandis A.
Westmore, United States Magistrate Judge, in Oakland,
California. The time period of June 24, 2016, to July 12,
2016, inclusive, is excluded in computing the time within
which an information or indictment must be filed under 18
U.S.C. § 3161(b) pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§
3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i), and (B)(iv). Nothing in this
Order shall preclude a finding that other ...