From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
May 2, 2013
No. CR 12-00748 RS (N.D. Cal. May. 2, 2013)

Opinion

No. CR 12-00748 RS

05-02-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. LAFONSO LUKE BROWN, RASHAD RAKEEM BROWN, RAKEEM MARCELLES BROWN, and MARCELIS FITZGERALD LEE, Defendants.

MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney NATALIE LEE Assistant United States Attorney ELIZABETH FALK Attorney for Lafonso Luke Brown MICHAEL HINCKLEY Attorney for Marcelis Lee RANDY SUE POLLOCK Attorney for Rashad Brown ISMAIL RAMSEY Attorney for Rakeem Brown


MELINDA HAAG (CABN 44332)
United States Attorney
MIRANDA KANE (CABN 163973)
Chief, Criminal Division
NATALIE LEE (CABN 277362)
Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7301

Facsimile: (415) 436-6982

natalie.lee2@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States of America

ORDER

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE

STATUS HEARING TO JUNE 11, 2013


Date: May 7, 2013

Court: Hon. Richard Seeborg

The above-captioned matter is set on May 7, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. before this Court for a status hearing following a settlement conference. The settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler has since been rescheduled to June 6, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. Therefore, the parties request that this Court continue the status hearing regarding the settlement conference to June 11, 2013 so that it will follow the newly scheduled settlement conference date. On that date, change of plea, motions, or trial will be discussed

The Court has previously excluded the running of the speedy trial clock for effective preparation of counsel, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), through May 7, 2013. Therefore, the parties now request that the time between May 7, 2013 and June 11, 2013 be excluded from the running of the speedy trial clock for that same reason - effective preparation of counsel, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties agree that, taking into account the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases, good cause exists for this extension due to the pending settlement conference scheduled for June 6, 2013 and the parties need to prepare for that conference. The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). SO STIPULATED:

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

_________________

NATALIE LEE

Assistant United States Attorney

_________________

ELIZABETH FALK

Attorney for Lafonso Luke Brown

_________________

MICHAEL HINCKLEY

Attorney for Marcelis Lee

_________________

RANDY SUE POLLOCK

Attorney for Rashad Brown

_________________

ISMAIL RAMSEY

Attorney for Rakeem Brown

For the reasons stated above, this matter is continued until June 11, 2013, for a status hearing regarding the settlement conference at which time change of plea, motions, or trial will be discussed. The Court finds that the exclusion of time from May 7, 2013 through June 11, 2013 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the defendants effective preparation of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). SO ORDERED.

_________________

HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
May 2, 2013
No. CR 12-00748 RS (N.D. Cal. May. 2, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. LAFONSO LUKE BROWN, RASHAD RAKEEM BROWN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: May 2, 2013

Citations

No. CR 12-00748 RS (N.D. Cal. May. 2, 2013)