Free Order - District Court of California - California


File Size: 55.5 kB
Pages: 3
Date: May 21, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 670 Words, 4,173 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/200684/14.pdf

Download Order - District Court of California ( 55.5 kB)


Preview Order - District Court of California
Case 3:08-cr-00091-JSW

Document 14

Filed 05/21/2008

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

On April 24, 2008, the parties in this case appeared before the Court and requested that time from April 24, 2008 through May 15, 2008 should be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations because defense counsel and government counsel needed adequate time to evaluate their respective positions in this case. The parties represented to the Court that the length of the requested continuance was the reasonable amount of time necessary for effective preparation of
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Excluding Time CR 08-0091 JSW

1

Case 3:08-cr-00091-JSW

Document 14

Filed 05/21/2008

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

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). On May 15, 2008, the parties appeared before the Court and requested that time from May 15, 2008 through May 22, 2008 should be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations because defense counsel and government counsel need adequate time to investigate defense counsel's claim that the defendant might be a U.S. citizen. 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: May 16, 2008

/s/ TAREK J. HELOU Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: May 16, 2008

/s/ RONALD TYLER Attorney for Defendant Juan M. Pena-Anguiano

As the Court stated on April 24, 2008, and for the reasons identified above, the Court finds that time from April 24, 2008 through May 10, 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 //
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Excluding Time CR 08-0091 JSW

2

Case 3:08-cr-00091-JSW

Document 14

Filed 05/21/2008

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

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). Additionally, as the Court stated on May 15, 2008, and for the reasons identified above, the Court finds that time from May 15, 2008 through May 22, 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 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.

May 21, 2008 DATED:______________

_____________________________________ THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge

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

3