Opinion
Case No. 3:12-cr-00867-LB
05-15-2013
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Bozarth Defendant.
STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
For the reasons stated by die parties on the record on 5/15, 2013, the Court excludes under the Speedy Trial Act from 5/15 2013 to July 25, 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 factor(s):
_ 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 [check 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).
x 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
STIPULATED: _____
Attorney for Defendant
______________
Assistant United States Attorney