Opinion
No. CR-11-70143 MAG (JCS)
11-01-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE CIEPIELA, Defendant.
OWEN MARTIKAN Assistant United States Attorney JODI LINKER Assistant Federal Public Defender
BARRY J. PORTMAN
Federal Public Defender
JODI LINKER
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Counsel for Defendant CIEPIELA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE AND
EXCLUSION UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND RULE 5.1
The parties jointly request that, subject to the Court's approval, the preliminary hearing/arraignment presently set for November 2, 2011 be continued to November 18, 2011 at 9:30 am.
Defendant George Ciepiela is charged in a criminal complaint with possession of child pornography. Mr. Ciepiela resides in Washington state and must fly to the Northern District of California for each court appearance. The parties are in negotiations on a pre-indictment resolution of the case. Additionally, defense counsel requires additional time to effectively prepare the defendant's case, including investigation and legal research of matters critical to the case. Accordingly, the parties jointly request that the preliminary hearing or arraignment be continued from November 2, 2011 to November 18, 2011.
For the above reasons, the parties stipulate there is good cause - taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of this case - to extend the time limit under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 for the preliminary hearing or arraignment from November 2, 2011 to November 18, 2011. The parties further agree that the time from November 2, 2011 to November 18, 2011 should be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C § 3161(b), and that failing to exclude that time would unreasonably deny the defendant and his counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties further agree that the ends of justice would be served by excluding the time from November 2, 2011 to November 18, 2011 from computation under the Speedy Trial Act and that the need for the exclusion outweighs the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
OWEN MARTIKAN
Assistant United States Attorney
JODI LINKER
Assistant Federal Public Defender
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States District Judge