Free Stipulation - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cr-00091-JSW

Document 3

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332) United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973) Chief, Criminal Division TAREK J. HELOU (CABN 218225) Assistant United States Attorney 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-7071 Facsimile: (415) 436-7234 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN MANUEL PENA-ANGUIANO, a/k/a Anguiano Ramirez, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CR No. 08-0091 (JSW-MEJ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3161

On February 22, 2008, the parties in this case appeared before the Court and stipulated that time from February 22, 2008 through February 27, 2008 should be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations because the government's motion for detention was pending before the Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). Furthermore, the parties also appeared before the Court on February 27, 2008, and stipulated
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Excluding Time CR 08-0091 (JSW -MEJ)

1

Case 3:08-cr-00091-JSW

Document 3

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

that time from February 27, 2008 through March 20, 2008 should be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations because defense counsel needed adequate time to review discovery. The parties represented to the Court that the length of the requested continuance was the reasonable amount of time necessary for effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). The parties also agreed that the ends of justice served by this continuance outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

SO STIPULATED: JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney

DATED: February 29, 2008

/s/ TAREK J. HELOU Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: February 29, 2008

/s/ RONALD TYLER Attorney for Defendant Francisco Acosta-Rojas

As the Court stated on February 22, 2008, and for the reasons identified above, the Court finds that time from February 22, 2008 through February 27, 2008 shall be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations because the government's motion for detention was pending before the Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). Furthermore, as the Court stated on February 27, 2008, and for the reasons identified above, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The Court also finds that time from February 27, 2008 through March 20, 2008 shall be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations for effective preparation of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). Failing to grant the requested continuance would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Excluding Time CR 08-0091 (JSW -MEJ)

2

Case 3:08-cr-00091-JSW

Document 3

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

SO ORDERED.

DATED:______________

_____________________________________ THE HONORABLE MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Excluding Time CR 08-0091 (JSW -MEJ)

3