From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Blincoe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Mar 20, 2013
Case No. 4-13-70004 MAG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 4-13-70004 MAG

03-20-2013

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Blincoe Defendant.


STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING

TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

For the reason stated by the parties on the record on _______, 2013, the Court excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from __________, 2013, to __________, 2013 and finds that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The Court makes this finding and bases this continuance on the following factors:

______ Failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(I). ______ The case is so unusual or so complex, due to [circle applicable reasons] the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or the trial itself within the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). ______ Failure to grant a continuance would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). ______ Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel, given counsel's other scheduled case commitments, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). v Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). v For the reasons stated on the record, it is further ordered that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (b) and waived with the consent of the defendant under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c) and (d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

Hon. Kandis A. Westmore

United States Magistrate Judge
STIPULATED ______________________

Attorney for Defendant

______________________

Assistant United States Attorney


Summaries of

United States v. Blincoe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Mar 20, 2013
Case No. 4-13-70004 MAG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Blincoe

Case Details

Full title:United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Blincoe Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Date published: Mar 20, 2013

Citations

Case No. 4-13-70004 MAG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013)