From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Goodman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 30, 2011
Criminal No. CR 11-00798 CRB (JS) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)

Opinion

Criminal No. CR 11-00798 CRB (JS)

11-30-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KEITH GOODMAN, Defendant.

JEANE HAMILTON (CSBN 157834) ALBERT B. SAMBAT (CSBN 236472) DAVID J. WARD (CSBN 239504) CHRISTINA M. WHEELER (CSBN 203395) MANISH KUMAR (CSBN 269493) Attorneys for the United States


JEANE HAMILTON (CSBN 157834)

ALBERT B. SAMBAT (CSBN 236472)

DAVID J. WARD (CSBN 239504)

CHRISTINA M. WHEELER (CSBN 203395)

MANISH KUMAR (CSBN 269493)

Attorneys for the United States

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM NOVEMBER 28, 2011 TO JANUARY 18, 2012

On November 28, 2011, the parties in this matter appeared before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for an initial appearance and arraignment. During this appearance, the parties stipulated that time should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculations from November 28, 2011 until January 18, 2012 for effective preparation of counsel. The parties represented that granting the continuance was for the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). SO STIPULATED:

Douglas L. Rappaport

Law Office of Douglas L. Rappaport

Counsel for Defendant Keith Goodman

David J. Ward

Jeane Hamilton

Albert B. Sambat

Christina M. Wheeler

Manish Kumar

Trial Attorneys

United States Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

As the Court found on November 28, 2011, and for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an exclusion of time from November 28, 2011 to January 18, 2012, is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the defendant and deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). SO ORDERED.

Judge Joseph C. Spero


Summaries of

United States v. Goodman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 30, 2011
Criminal No. CR 11-00798 CRB (JS) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Goodman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KEITH GOODMAN, Defendant.

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

Date published: Nov 30, 2011

Citations

Criminal No. CR 11-00798 CRB (JS) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)