From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Perez-Anguiano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
May 8, 2013
No. CR 12-0090 RS (N.D. Cal. May. 8, 2013)

Opinion

No. CR 12-0090 RS CR 12-0156 RS

05-08-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PABLO PEREZ-ANGUIANO, a/k/a Jose Escalera Aguilera Defendant.

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division CAROLYN SILANE (NYBN 4596235) Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the United States of America CANDIS MITCHELL Attorney for Defendant


MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)
United States Attorney
MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)
Chief, Criminal Division
CAROLYN SILANE (NYBN 4596235)
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 April 30, 2013, the parties in this case appeared before the Court. At that time, the Court set the matter to June 11, 2013. The parties have agreed to exclude the period of time between April 30, 2013 and June 11, 2013 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

_______________

CAROLYN SILANE

Special Assistant United States Attorney

_______________

CANDIS MITCHELL

Attorney for Defendant

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above and at the April 30, 2013 hearing, the Court finds that the exclusion from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 of the period from April 30, 2013 and June 11, 2013 is warranted and that the ends of justice 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.

_______________

THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Perez-Anguiano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
May 8, 2013
No. CR 12-0090 RS (N.D. Cal. May. 8, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Perez-Anguiano

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PABLO PEREZ-ANGUIANO, a/k/a Jose…

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

Date published: May 8, 2013

Citations

No. CR 12-0090 RS (N.D. Cal. May. 8, 2013)