From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hibbett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
May 8, 2013
No. CR 5:13-MJ-70368 HRL (N.D. Cal. May. 8, 2013)

Opinion

No. CR 5:13-MJ-70368 HRL

05-08-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN HIBBETT, Defendant.

MELINDA L. HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division JOSEPH FAZIOLI (ILBN 6273413) Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the United States


MELINDA L. HAAG (CABN 132612)
United States Attorney
MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)
Chief, Criminal Division
JOSEPH FAZIOLI (ILBN 6273413)
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for the United States

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER CONTINUING APPEARANCE

DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME FROM

THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

CALCULATION (18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(A))

This matter is scheduled before the Court for an preliminary hearing or arraignment on May 9, 2013. On April 5, 2013, this Court issued a criminal complaint against the defendant related to two child pornography offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a). The United States and the defendant now request a continuance until June 6, 2013 in order to afford defense counsel additional time to effectively prepare and also to allow the parties an opportunity to discuss a potential pre-indictment resolution of the mattter. The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:

1. The preliminary hearing or arraignment is continued to June 6, 2013.

2. Time should be excluded under Rule 5.1 from May 9, 2013 to June 6, 2013 in order to allow defense counsel additional time to effectively prepare and also to allow the parties an opportunity to discuss a potential pre-indictment resolution of the mattter. The parties agree that the continuance is proper under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. § 3060.

3. The time between May 9, 2013 to June 6, 2013 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. The parties agree that the failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Finally, the parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and in the prompt disposition of criminal cases. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). STIPULATED:

_______________

VARELL FULLER

Assistant Federal Public Defender

_______________

JOSEPH FAZIOLI

Assistant United States Attorney
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Hibbett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
May 8, 2013
No. CR 5:13-MJ-70368 HRL (N.D. Cal. May. 8, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Hibbett

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN HIBBETT, Defendant.

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

Date published: May 8, 2013

Citations

No. CR 5:13-MJ-70368 HRL (N.D. Cal. May. 8, 2013)