From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lipton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 28, 2011
Criminal No. CR 11-00799 CRB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)

Opinion

Criminal No. CR 11-00799 CRB

11-28-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRAIG LIPTON, Defendant.

JEANE HAMILTON (CSBN 157834) ALBERT B. SAMBAT (CSBN 236472) DAVID J. WARD (CSBN 239504) CHRISTINA M. WHEELER (CSBN 203395) MANISH KUMAR (CSBN 269493) U.S. Department of Justice 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)

U.S. Department of Justice

Attorneys for the United States

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED)

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER

THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM

NOVEMBER 22, 2011 TO DECEMBER

14, 2011

On November 22, 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 22, 2011 until December 14, 2011 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 defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). SO STIPULATED:

Ted W. Cassman

Arguedas, Cassman & Headley, LLP

Counsel for Defendant Craig Lipton

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 22, 2011, and for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an exclusion of time from November 22, 2011 to December 14, 2011, 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.

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Lipton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 28, 2011
Criminal No. CR 11-00799 CRB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Lipton

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRAIG LIPTON, Defendant.

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

Date published: Nov 28, 2011

Citations

Criminal No. CR 11-00799 CRB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)