From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Nelson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 4, 2011
No. CR 10-00244 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2011)

Opinion

No. CR 10-00244 EMC

11-04-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY NELSON, Defendant.

MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney MICHELLE J. KANE Assistant United States Attorney BARRY PORTMAN Federal Public Defender RONALD TYLER Assistant Federal Public Defender Counsel for Michael A. Nelson


MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)

United States Attorney

MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)

Chief, Criminal Division

MICHELLE J. KANE (CABN 210579)

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM

OCTOBER 26, 2011, TO DECEMBER 21, 2011.

With the agreement of the parties in open court on October 26, 2011, and with the consent of the defendant Michael Anthony Nelson, the Court enters this order (1) setting a status conference in District Court on December 21, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., and (2) documenting the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, from October 26, 2011, to December 21, 2011. The Court finds and holds, as follows:

1. The parties previously appeared before District Judge Edward M. Chen on October 13, 2011. At that time, Counsel for defendant informed the Court and counsel for the government that the defendant had filed a pro se appeal of the Court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The Court set a further status conference for October 26, 2011, to give the counsel for defendant time to investigate and found that the period from October 13, 2011, to October 26, 2011, was properly excluded under the Speedy Trial Act to allow defense counsel further preparation. The government agreed to the proposed exclusion of time.

2. On October 25, 2011, a Clerk's Order was filed by the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals directing defendant to move for voluntary dismissal of his appeal or to show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Order states that defendant is to file his response within twenty-one days of the order and that any response is to be filed within ten days following the filing of defendant's response.

3. The parties appeared on October 26, 2011 before District Judge Edward M. Chen. Based on the aforementioned Clerk's Order, the Court scheduled a further status conference for December 21, 2011, at 2:30 pm. Counsel for the defendant, who was present and in custody, requested that the period until December 21, 2011, be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act to allow defense counsel time for further preparation.

4. The Court finds that, taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases, granting the continuance from October 26, 2011 to December 21, 2011, is necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court also notes the existence of the Ninth Circuit proceedings. Given these circumstances, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from October 26, 2011, to December 21, 2011, outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

5. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court (1) sets a status hearing on December 21, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., and (2) orders that the period from October 26, 2011, to December 26, 2011, is excluded from Speedy Trial Act computation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(D) and 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

MICHELLE J. KANE

Assistant United States Attorney

BARRY PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

RONALD TYLER

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Counsel for Michael A. Nelson

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Edward M. Chen


Summaries of

United States v. Nelson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 4, 2011
No. CR 10-00244 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Nelson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY NELSON, Defendant.

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

Date published: Nov 4, 2011

Citations

No. CR 10-00244 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2011)