From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Romero

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 2, 2011
No. CR 11-0792 PJH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)

Opinion

No. CR 11-0792 PJH

11-02-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARIVEL LAUREANO DE ROMERO, Defendant.

BARRY J. PORTMAN Federal Public Defender JOHN PAUL REICHMUTH Assistant Federal Public Defender Counsel for Defendant LAUREANO DE ROMERO


BARRY J. PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

JOHN PAUL REICHMUTH

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Counsel for Defendant LAUREANO DE ROMERO

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE TO OCTOBER 28, 2011 AND TO EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Time: 9:30 a.m.

The above-captioned matter is set on October 28, 2011 before the Oakland Duty Magistrate for a status hearing. The parties jointly request that the Court continue the matter to November 16, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. before the Oakland Duty Magistrate for WAIVER OF INDICTMENT/ARRAIGNMENT ON INFORMATION and also SET the matter on for CHANGE OF PLEA before the Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton on November 16, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. The parties stipulate that the Court exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(b),(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), between the date of this Stipulation and November 16, 2011. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(d), the defendant consents to an extension of the time limit within which to hold a Preliminary hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(c).

Defendant Marivel Laureano de Romero is currently residing, on unsecured bond, outside of the State of California.. The requested continuance will allow the defendant to review and discuss the evidence in this case and a pending plea offer. In addition, due to distance, additional time is required for travel arrangements and consultation between counsel and client. For these reasons, the parties agree that the failure to grant this continuance would unreasonably deny counsel for defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

The parties further stipulate and agree that the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Accordingly, the parties agree that the period of time from the date of this stipulation to November 16, 2011, should be excluded in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(b),(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), for effective preparation of defense counsel and the making of travel arrangements, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

ANDREW HUANG

Assistant United States Attorney

JOHN PAUL REICHMUTH

Assistant Federal Public Defender

ORDER

Based on the reasons provided in the stipulation of the parties above, the Court hereby FINDS:

1. That the defense needs time review the case and plea offer with Ms. Laureano de Romero, who resides out of state;

2. That these tasks are necessary to the defense preparation of the case and that the failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny counsel for defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence;

3. That the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial;

4. Through counsel, defendant consents to an extension of time in which to hold a Preliminary Hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(c).

Based on these findings, it is hereby

ORDERED that the matter be continued to November 16, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. before the Oakland Duty Magistrate for WAIVER OF INDICTMENT/ARRAIGNMENT ON INFORMATION; it is further

ORDERED that the matter be SET for CHANGE OF PLEA before the Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton on November 16, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.; it is further

ORDERED that time be excluded pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(b),(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), from the date of this Stipulation until November 16, 2011.

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Romero

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 2, 2011
No. CR 11-0792 PJH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Romero

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARIVEL LAUREANO DE ROMERO…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 2, 2011

Citations

No. CR 11-0792 PJH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)