Free Proposed Order - District Court of California - California

Case 4:07-cr-00629-MJJ

Document 2

Filed 10/09/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (SC 9990) United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH(CABN 163973) Chief, Criminal Division BRYAN R. WHITTAKER (TX 24047097) Special Assistant United States Attorney 1301 Clay Street, Suite 340S Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 637-3680 Facsimile: (510) 637-3724 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 OAKLAND DIVISION 13 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 ABEL FLORES-TORRES, 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CR-07-0629 MJJ [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8) from October 5, 2007 to October 26, 2007

ORDER 1. On October 4, 2007, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against defendant Able Flores-Torres. 2. On October 5, 2007, Mr. Flores-Torres appeared before this Court for arraignment and the defendant waived his right to a detention hearing. This Court scheduled Mr. Flores-Torres's initial appearance before District Judge Martin J. Jenkins for October 26, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. The Court also found that time was excluded under the Speedy trial Act from October 5, 2007 through October 26, 2007, but requested that the Government prepare a proposed order. 3. At the hearing, the Government indicated that discovery had not yet been provided. Based upon defense counsel's need to review discovery the Court finds that the time between

Case 4:07-cr-00629-MJJ

Document 2

Filed 10/09/2007

Page 2 of 2

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

October 5, 2007 and October 26, 2007 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(8), as a delay is necessary to give defendant continuity of counsel and to give defense counsel reasonable time for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and that the furtherance of the ends of justice which this delay effects outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________

______________________________________ HONORABLE NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge