From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Perez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 28, 2011
No. CR 11-0848 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)

Opinion

No. CR 11-0848 EMC

11-28-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN BAUTISTA PEREZ, a/k/a Miguel Cobian Carrion, Defendant.

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division LOWELL C. POWELL (CABN 235446) Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the United States of America


MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)

United States Attorney

MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)

Chief, Criminal Division

LOWELL C. POWELL (CABN 235446)

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for the United States of America

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3161

On November 18, 2011, the parties in this case appeared before the Court. At that time, the Court set the matter to December 14, 2011. The parties have agreed to exclude the period of time between November 18, 2011 and December 14, 2011, from any time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The parties represented that granting the exclusion would allow the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation 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). At the hearing, the Court made findings consistent with this agreement. SO STIPULATED:

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

LOWELL C. POWELL

Special Assistant United States Attorney

GEOFFREY HANSEN

Attorney for JUAN BAUTISTA PEREZ

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above and at the November 18, 2011 hearing, the Court finds that the exclusion from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 of the period from November 18, 2011 through December 14, 2011 is warranted and that the ends ofjustice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A). Denying the requested exclusion of time would deprive the parties of the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Perez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 28, 2011
No. CR 11-0848 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Perez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN BAUTISTA PEREZ, a/k/a Miguel…

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

Date published: Nov 28, 2011

Citations

No. CR 11-0848 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)