From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Johnson

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Jan 8, 2007
CR 05-00146 CRB (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2007)

Opinion

          KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321) United States Attorney, MARK L. KROTOSKI (CSBN 138549) Chief, Criminal Division, JEFFREY R. FINIGAN (CSBN 168285) Assistant United States Attorney San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff.


          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED].

          CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

         The above-captioned matter came before the Court on January 3, 2007, for status regarding the defendant's competency evaluation. The defendant was represented by Steven Kalar, Esq., and the government was represented by Jeffrey Finigan, Assistant United States Attorney. Pursuant to Mr. Kalar's request, the matter was continued to January 10, 2007, at 2:15 p.m. in this Court for further proceedings.

         The Court made a finding that the time from and including January 3, 2007, through January 10, 2007, should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A), because the ends of justice served by taking such action outweighed the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The finding was based on the need for the defendant to have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and for continuity of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

         The parties hereby agree to and request that the case be continued until January 10, 2007, and that the exclusion of time until then be granted. The parties agree and stipulate that the additional time is appropriate and necessary under Title 18, United States Code, § 3161(h)(8)(A), because the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. This time exclusion will allow defense counsel to effectively prepare, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and will provide for continuity of counsel for the defendant.

         So ordered.


Summaries of

United States v. Johnson

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Jan 8, 2007
CR 05-00146 CRB (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2007)
Case details for

United States v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD JOHNSON, Defendant.

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

Date published: Jan 8, 2007

Citations

CR 05-00146 CRB (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2007)