From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Harroun

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 16, 2011
No. CR 11-00090-DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2011)

Opinion

No. CR 11-00090-DLJ

11-16-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS LAMAR HARROUN, Defendant.

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division JOHN N. GLANG (GUAMBN 94012) Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the United States of America


MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)

United States Attorney

MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)

Chief, Criminal Division

JOHN N. GLANG (GUAMBN 94012)

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for the United States of America

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

The above-captioned defendant and the United States of America, by and through their counsel of record, hereby agree and stipulate that the court may exclude the period of time from the date of the defendant's initial appearance with counsel before United States Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on November 14, 2011 through and including February 7, 2012, from the computation of the period of time within which the trial must commence for the reasons set forth in the proposed order below.

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

JOHN N. GLANG

Assistant United States Attorney

CAMELLIA BARAY

Attorney for defendant Dennis Lamar Harroun

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), and the stipulation of the parties, the court excludes the period of time from November 14, 2011, through and including February 7, 2011, from the computation of the period of time within which the trial must commence. The court FINDS that the ends of justice served by the delay outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The court bases this finding on the need of counsel for the defendant to review voluminous discovery in this case that is about to be provided to her by the government and to afford counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 3161 (h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Northern District of California


Summaries of

United States v. Harroun

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 16, 2011
No. CR 11-00090-DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Harroun

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS LAMAR HARROUN, Defendant.

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

Date published: Nov 16, 2011

Citations

No. CR 11-00090-DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2011)