From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Perkins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 18, 2011
No. CR 11-0536 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2011)

Opinion

No. CR 11-0536 WHA

11-18-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH PERKINS, Defendant.

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 44332) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 163973) Chief, Criminal Division BENJAMIN TOLKOFF (NYB 4294443) Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff


MELINDA HAAG (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

MIRANDA KANE (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

BENJAMIN TOLKOFF (NYB 4294443)

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Plaintiff

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

On October 11, 2011, the parties made their initial appearance before the Court. The parties requested, and the Court ordered, a continuance until November 1, 2011, on which date the parties anticipate a change of plea. The stated purpose of the continuance request was to afford defense counsel adequate time to prepare.

The parties also requested, and the Court ordered, that the time between October 11 and November 1, 2011, would be excluded from the running of the speedy trial clock for effective preparation of counsel, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties agree that, taking into account the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases, good cause exists for this extension. The parties also agreed that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). SO STIPULATED:

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

BENJAMIN P. TOLKOFF

Assistant United States Attorney

RONALD TYLER

Attorney for JOSEPH PERKINS

For the reasons stated above, this matter is continued until November 1, 2011, for a change of plea or trial setting. The Court finds that the exclusion of time from October 11, through November 1, 2011 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). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the defendant effective preparation of counsel and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). SO ORDERED.

William Alsup

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Perkins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 18, 2011
No. CR 11-0536 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Perkins

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH PERKINS, Defendant.

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

Date published: Nov 18, 2011

Citations

No. CR 11-0536 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2011)