From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Moore

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 14, 2011
No.CR11-0709-DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011)

Opinion

No.CR11-0709-DLJ

11-14-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSHUA MOORE AND CALA REMICK, Defendants.

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division THOMAS M. O'CONNELL (NYSBN 1801950) Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff


MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)

United States Attorney

MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)

Chief, Criminal Division

THOMAS M. O'CONNELL (NYSBN 1801950)

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

SAN JOSE VENUE

On October 25, 2011, parties appeared before the court for the first Status Hearing in this matter. At that time the court continued the case until November 15, 2011 so that the discovery process could be commenced and counsel would have sufficient time to review the materials and confer with their clients. However, the court will be unavailable, in trial, on November 15. Moreover, discovery is still not complete and other non-severed co-defendants have yet to be joined, inasmuch as they have been in the process being writted, with due diligence, from state facilities and have yet to appear before the District Court. The parties therefore hereby stipulate and agree to continue the matter until November 29, 2011, and to exclusions of time under the Speedy Trial Act, and that said exclusions of time are appropriate based on the defendant's need for effective preparation of counsel.

SO STIPULATED:

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

THOMAS M. O'CONNELL

Assistant United States Attorney

VICKI YOUNG

Counsel for Remick

THOMAS FERRITO

Counsel for Moore

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the matter is continued until November 29, 2011. The Court further finds that based on the defendant's need for effective preparation of counsel, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court therefore concludes that this exclusion of time should be made under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(3)(A), (6) and (7)(B)(iv).

SO ORDERED.

D. LOWELL JENSEN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Moore

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 14, 2011
No.CR11-0709-DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSHUA MOORE AND CALA REMICK…

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

Date published: Nov 14, 2011

Citations

No.CR11-0709-DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011)