Opinion
No. CR 12-00783 LHK
03-18-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LEO JOSHUA KENNEDY, Defendant.
STEVEN G. KALAR Federal Public Defender DIANA A. GARRIDO Assistant Federal Public Defender Counsel for Defendant KENNEDY MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney JEFFREY B. SCHENK Assistant United States Attorney
STEVEN G. KALAR
Federal Public Defender
DIANA A. GARRIDO
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Counsel for Defendant KENNEDY
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE
AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE
SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
The defendant, Leo Joshua Kennedy, represented by Assistant Federal Public Defender Diana A. Garrido, and the government, represented by Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey B. Schenk, hereby stipulate that, with the Court's approval, the status conference currently set for Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., shall be continued to Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.
The continuance is requested to provide both defense counsel and the government with additional time to review discovery and to negotiate an appropriate resolution. The continuance would provide both parties with the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation. Accordingly, both parties respectfully request that the time between March 20, 2013 and April 17, 2013 be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
STEVEN G. KALAR
Federal Public Defender
DIANA A. GARRIDO
Assistant Federal Public Defender
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
JEFFREY B. SCHENK
Assistant United States Attorney
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to agreement and stipulation of the parties, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the status conference set for March 20, 2013 be continued to April 17, 2013. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the time between March 20, 2013 and April 17, 2013 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161. The Court finds, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), that the failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Furthermore, the Court finds 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. The Court therefore concludes that this exclusion of time should be made under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge