Opinion
Case No. CR 3-11-70588 MAG (JCS)
10-31-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY JOSEF NORRIS, Defendant.
GAIL SHIFMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW Attorney for Defendant ANTHONY JOSEF NORRIS Owen Martikan Assistant United States Attorney Gail Shifman Attorney for Defendant Norris
GAIL SHIFMAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Attorney for Defendant
ANTHONY JOSEF NORRIS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY
HEARING DATE
Plaintiff, by and through its attorney of record, Owen Martikan, and defendant, by and through his attorney of record, Gail Shiftman, hereby stipulate and ask the Court to find as follows:
1. That the parties are currently scheduled for a preliminary hearing date of November 1, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. The parties have been in discussions and believe that the case will resolve without proceeding to indictment. To that end, the parties are in the midst of negotiating a plea resolution to this case.
2. That the parties believe that a continuance of the preliminary hearing date will allow for further review of the discovery materials allowing the parties to finalize discussions to resolve the case.
3. That the parties request that the Court vacate the November 1, 2011 preliminary hearing date and continue it until November 9, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. before the duty Magistrate Judge, Joseph Spero.
4. That Defendant Norris has been advised of and consents to the extension of time for the preliminary hearing beyond the time limit contained in Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c).
5. That the parties agree that the failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence and that November 1, 2011 through November 9, 2011 should be excluded in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), on the basis that the ends of justice are served by taking such action which outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and also under subsection (B)(iv) for effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
Owen Martikan
Assistant United States Attorney
Gail Shifman
Attorney for Defendant Norris
[PROPOSED] ORDER
This matter having come before the Court upon the Stipulation of the parties and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
That the November 1, 2011 preliminary hearing date shall be vacated and continued until November 9, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. before the duty Magistrate Judge;
And, that the time from November 1, 2011 through November 9, 2011 shall be excluded in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), to provide the defense time to review discovery and for effective preparation. The Court finds that (A) failure to grant the continuance would unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joseph C. Spero
United States Magistrate Judge