Opinion
CR 21-00309 LHK
08-19-2021
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Ruben Chavez, Defendants
Erik Babcock Attorney for Defendant Erik Babcock Assistant United States Attorney
Erik Babcock Attorney for Defendant
Erik Babcock Assistant United States Attorney
STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
Virginia K. DeMarchi United States Magistrate Judge
For the reasons stated by the parties on the record on August 19, 2021, the court excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from August 19, 2021 to September 8, 2021 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.SC. § 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 reasonable 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 US.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
____With the consent of the defendant, and taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases, the court sets the preliminary hearing to the date set forth in the first paragraph and - based on the parties' showing of good cause - finds good cause for extending the time limits for a preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and for extending the 30-day time period for an indictment under the Speedy Trial Act (based on the exclusions set forth above). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1; 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.