From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lopez

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Jun 25, 2015
CR 4-15-70692 MAG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2015)

Opinion

          MELINDA HAAG, United States Attorney.

          DAVID R. CALLOWAY, Chief, Criminal Division.

          JENNIFER A. TOLKOFF, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Oakland, CA, Attorneys for the United States of America.

          JOYCE LEAVITT, Attorney for Defendant.


          STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY HEARING OR ARRAIGNMENT DATE AND WAIVING TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT TO JULY 23, 2015.

          KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.

         With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court enters this order pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d) continuing the arraignment or preliminary hearing to July 23, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Judge Westmore for arraignment or preliminary hearing. Counsel for the defendant believes that postponing the preliminary hearing is in her client's best interest and that it is not in her client's best interest for the United States to present an indictment before the current July 23, 2015, preliminary hearing date. The parties agree that, taking into account the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases, good cause exists for this extension.

         Defendant also agrees to toll and to waive for this period of time any time limits applicable under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161. The parties agree and stipulate that defense counsel needs additional time to meet with her client to go over discovery in the case and that an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act for continuity of counsel and effective preparation of counsel is warranted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) between June 22, 2015, and July 30, 2015. Undersigned defense counsel represents that she has spoken with her client, and that he agrees to the continuance and to time being tolled and waived as requested.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Lopez

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Jun 25, 2015
CR 4-15-70692 MAG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Lopez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARCELINO LOPEZ, Defendant.

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

Date published: Jun 25, 2015

Citations

CR 4-15-70692 MAG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2015)