From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lopez-Flores

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 2, 2011
No. CR 10-00932 DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)

Opinion

No. CR 10-00932 DLJ

11-02-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL LOPEZ-FLORES, Defendant.

VICKI H. YOUNG, ESQ. Attorney for Michael Lopez Flores MELIND A. HAAG UNITED STATES ATTORNEY THOMAS COLTHURST Assistant United States Attorney


VICKI H. YOUNG

Law Offices of Vicki H. Young

Counsel for Gustavo Colin Lopez

STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE

OF STATUS DATE; [PROPOSED]

ORDER

It is hereby stipulated between the defendant MICHAEL LOPEZ-FLORES, by and through his attorney of record VICKI H. YOUNG, and the government, through Assistant United States Attorney Thomas Colthurst, that the status date of November 8, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. be continued to November 15, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. The reason for this continuance is that the attorney appointed to render a second opinion on the case has been out on medical leave, and defense counsel needs additional time to make arrangements for the defendant to consult with second counsel by telephone.

Under Title 18 U.S. C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), the continuance is necessary to allow the attorneys for the government and the defense the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into the account the exercise of due diligence. Since the defendant needs additional time to make arrangements to speak with second counsel, the time period from November 8, 2011, through November 15, 2011, should be excluded.

It is so stipulated.

Respectfully submitted,

VICKI H. YOUNG, ESQ.

Attorney for Michael Lopez Flores

MELIND A. HAAG

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

THOMAS COLTHURST

Assistant United States Attorney

[ PROPOSED ] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE BEING SHOWN, the status date appearance set for November 8, 2011, is continued to November 15, 2011. This Court finds that the period from November 8, 2011, through and including November 15, 2011, is excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161(h). The basis for such exclusion is that defense counsel need additional time to make arrangements for the defendant to speak with second counsel by telephone. Therefore the ends of justice served by such a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a Speedy Trial within the meaning of Title 18 U.S.C §3161(h)(7)(A).

As required by 18 U.S.C §3161 (h)(7)(A), this Court finds that the reason that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial are the denial of the continuance would unreasonably deny both the attorney for the government and the attorney for the defendant reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

D.LOWELL JENSEN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Lopez-Flores

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 2, 2011
No. CR 10-00932 DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Lopez-Flores

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL LOPEZ-FLORES, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 2, 2011

Citations

No. CR 10-00932 DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)