From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Cranney

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Jan 10, 2007
: 3:06-70711 EDL (JL) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2007)

Opinion


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HIROSHIGE CRANNEY, Defendant. No.: 3:06-70711 EDL (JL) United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division. January 10, 2007

          STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR NEW STATUS DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

          JAMES LARSON, Magistrate Judge.

         With the agreement of the parties, the Court enters this order setting an initial appearance on March 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. before the duty magistrate judge, and excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act from January 12, 2007, to March 27, 2007. The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:

         1. Cranney made an initial appearance in this district on a complaint and has been released on a personal recognizance bond. On December 20, 2006, a grand jury in the District of Connecticut returned an indictment charging him with distributing a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(a) and (b)(1)(D).

         2. The parties contemplate a Rule 20 transfer to this district. The assistant United States attorney in the District of Connecticut (the transferring district) has provided discovery to Cranney, and the defense is reviewing the discovery to evaluate the disposition.

         3. The case is currently scheduled for status on the Rule 20 transfer and arraignment on the indictment on January 12, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. Defense counsel is about to start a several-month trial. Accordingly, the parties ask for a continuance to March 27, 2007, both for continuity of defense counsel and to allow defense counsel to review the discovery, which is needed for effective preparation of defense counsel. A continuance also will provide sufficient time for the Rule 20 process to be completed.

         3. The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, that failure to grant the continuance would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defense continuity of counsel. See id. The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from January 12, 2007, to March 27, 2007, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Id . § 3161(h)(A).

         4. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court (1) vacates the January 12, 2007, status date and sets a preliminary hearing date before the duty magistrate judge on March 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., and (2) orders that the period from January 12, 2007, to March 27, 2007, be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Cranney

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Jan 10, 2007
: 3:06-70711 EDL (JL) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2007)
Case details for

United States v. Cranney

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HIROSHIGE CRANNEY, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Jan 10, 2007

Citations

: 3:06-70711 EDL (JL) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2007)