Opinion
No. 11-mj-71223 MAG
11-09-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GABRIEL JOSEPH LOPEZ, Defendant.
MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division KEVIN J. BARRY (CABN 229748) Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff
MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)
United States Attorney
MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)
Chief, Criminal Division
KEVIN J. BARRY (CABN 229748)
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING HEARING DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME
Date: November 10, 2011
Time: 9:30 a.m.
On November 2, 2011, the Court held a status conference in this case and set November 10, 2011 as the date for a preliminary hearing or arraignment. The parties hereby stipulate and request to set the date for preliminary hearing or arraignment date for November 16, 2011, and they request that the Court extend the time limits provided by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 (c) and 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
Pursuant to Rule 5.1(d), the defendant and the government consent to the extension of time, and the parties represent that good cause exists for this extension, including the effective preparation of counsel and continuity of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
SO STIPULATED:
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
KEVIN J. BARRY
Assistant United States Attorney
RONALD TYLER
Attorney for GABRIEL JOSEPH LOPEZ
[PROPOSED] ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court sets November 16, 2011 as the date for the next status conference / arraignment / preliminary hearing. The Court also finds that extension of time limits applicable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c) from November 10, 2011, through November 16, 2011, is warranted; that exclusion of this period from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 is warranted; that the ends of justice served by the continuance under Rule 5.1 outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in the prompt disposition of this criminal case; and that the failure to grant the requested exclusion of time would deny counsel for the defendant and for the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and continuity of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. BOMMER
United States Magistrate Judge