Free Stipulation and Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cr-00619-WHA

Document 11

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 1 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

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (SC 9990) United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN 163973) Chief, Criminal Division ALLISON MARSTON DANNER (CSBN 195046) Assistant United States Attorney 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102-3495 Telephone: (415) 436-7144 FAX: (415) 436-7234 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for the United States UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MAHER WALID KHATIB, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CR 07-0619 WHA STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A))

With the agreement of the parties in open court, and with the consent of defendant Maher Walid Khatib, the Court enters this order documenting the exclusion of time from October 23, 2007 through October 30, 2007 under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows: 1. Defendant was indicted on September 27, 2007, and he was arraigned on the

indictment on September 28, 2007. Defendant made his initial appearance before this Court on October 2, 2007. Defendant next appeared before this Court on October 23, 2007 for a status conference. 2. By an order issued on October 9, 2007, this Court excluded six days between

October 2, 2007 and October 23, 2007 from Speedy Trial Act calculations on the grounds that
STA Stipulation CR 07-0619 W HA

Case 3:07-cr-00619-WHA

Document 11

Filed 10/29/2007

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

failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny defendant continuity of counsel and reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv). 4. At the status conference on October 23, 2007, defendant asked that substitute

counsel be appointed. After hearing from defendant and his defense counsel, this Court granted defendant's request. The Court set the matter for a status conference with defendant's new counsel on October 30, 2007. 5. At the status conference held on October 23, 2007, this Court concluded that, in

light of the appointment of new counsel, it is appropriate to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act on the grounds of effective preparation of counsel. The Court found that the ends of justice served by excluding the eight-day period from October 23, 2007 through October 30, 2007 from Speedy Trial Act calculations outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv). 6. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant at the appearance on October

23, 2007, the Court ordered that the period from October 23, 2007 through October 30, 2007 be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations. Id. IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: October 24, 2007

_____________/s/_______________ RONALD C. TYLER Attorney for Defendant

DATED: October 23, 2007 IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________/s/________________ ALLISON MARSTON DANNER Assistant United States Attorney
ISTRIC ES D TC AT T

RT U O

October 29, 2007 DATED: ______________

STA Stipulation CR 07-0619 W HA

ER

2

N

F D IS T IC T O R

A

C

LI

FO

Judge W

illiam A

lsup

R NIA

_______________________________ WILLIAM ALSUP United States District Judge
NO

UNIT ED

S

RT

H