From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Singh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Nov 30, 2011
Case No.: CR 4-11-71127 MAG (LB) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)

Opinion

Case No.: CR 4-11-71127 MAG (LB)

11-30-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HELEN JEAN SINGH, Defendant.

EDWIN PRATHER, SBN 190536 LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN PRATHER Attorneys for Defendant HELEN JEAN SINGH


EDWIN PRATHER, SBN 190536

LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN PRATHER

Attorneys for Defendant

HELEN JEAN SINGH

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE TO DECEMBER 8, 2011 AND WAIVER OF TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING DATE AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

On November 2, 2011, the parties appeared before the Court for a detention hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, Ms. Singh was released from custody under certain terms and conditions and a status conference was set for December 2, 2011.

Ms. Singh's counsel is unavailable on December 2, 2011, due to his travel out of the jurisdiction on another matter. As such, the parties request and stipulate that the Court continue Ms. Singh's status conference to December 8, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

In continuing the matter to December 8, 2011, Ms. Singh waives time for a preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c). Ms. Singh has previously waived her right to a preliminary hearing and the parties agree that - taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases - good cause exists for this extension.

The parties also stipulate and move the Court for an Order excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (b), through December 8, 2011. The parties previously agreed to toll and to waive time, for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, through December 2, 2011. The parties agree and stipulate that the delay resulting from this continuance serves the ends of justice and that such action outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Defense counsel continues to investigate this case and review pre-indictment discovery. The parties therefore stipulate that an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act for continuity of counsel and effective preparation of counsel is warranted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

SO STIPULATED.

EDWIN PRATHER

Counsel for HELEN JEAN SINGH

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

ANDREW HUANG

Assistant United States Attorney

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING and per the parties' stipulation, the status conference in this case is continued to December 8, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

The Court finds that based on the record and the stipulation above, that the continue of the status conference to December 8, 2011, serves the ends of justice and that such action outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Specifically, the Court finds that denying such a continuance would deny the defendant of continuity of counsel and deny defense counsel reasonable time for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Therefore, the period of time between December 2, 2011, and December 8, 2011, shall be excluded for Speedy Trial Act purposes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

THE HONORABLE LAUREL BEELER

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Singh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Nov 30, 2011
Case No.: CR 4-11-71127 MAG (LB) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Singh

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HELEN JEAN SINGH, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Date published: Nov 30, 2011

Citations

Case No.: CR 4-11-71127 MAG (LB) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)