From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Tran

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 29, 2011
No. CR 11-0575 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)

Opinion

No. CR 11-0575 EMC

11-29-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. VONG DINH TRAN, 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 October 26, 2011, the parties in this case appeared before the Court. At that time, the Court set the matter to November 30, 2011. The parties have agreed to exclude the period of time between October 26, 2011 and November 30, 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

ELIZABETH FALK

Attorney for VONG DINH TRAN

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above and at the October 26, 2011 hearing, the Court finds that the exclusion from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 of the period from October 26, 2011 through November 30, 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). 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.

_______________

Judge Edward M. Chen


Summaries of

United States v. Tran

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 29, 2011
No. CR 11-0575 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Tran

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. VONG DINH TRAN, Defendant.

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

Date published: Nov 29, 2011

Citations

No. CR 11-0575 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)