From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Turner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SALINAS DIVISION
May 2, 2013
Criminal No.: CR-12-00772 PSG (N.D. Cal. May. 2, 2013)

Opinion

Criminal No.: CR-12-00772 PSG

05-02-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANTOINE EDWARD DOMINIC TURNER, Defendant.

MELINDA HAAG (CASBN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division ROBERT K. PRUITT (KYBN 93232) Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff MANUEL ARAUJO Counsel for the Defendant


MELINDA HAAG (CASBN 132612)
United States Attorney
MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)
Chief, Criminal Division
ROBERT K. PRUITT (KYBN 93232)
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Plaintiff

SECOND STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

On April 1, 2013 the parties in this case appeared before the Court for a status hearing. The parties jointly requested that the case be continued until June 3, 2013 at 9:00 am, in order to allow counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation. In addition, the parties request an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, from April 1, 2013 to June 3, 2013. The parties agree and stipulate that an exclusion of time is appropriate based on the defendant's need for effective preparation of counsel. SO STIPULATED:

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

____________________

ROBERT K. PRUITT

Special Assistant United States Attorney

____________________

MANUEL ARAUJO

Counsel for the Defendant

ORDER

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from April 1, 2013 to June 3, 2013. The Court finds, based on the aforementioned reasons, that the ends of justice are served by granting the requested continuance and outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the parties reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court therefore concludes that this exclusion of time should be made under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A)and(B)(iv). SO ORDERED.

____________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Turner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SALINAS DIVISION
May 2, 2013
Criminal No.: CR-12-00772 PSG (N.D. Cal. May. 2, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Turner

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANTOINE EDWARD DOMINIC TURNER…

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

Date published: May 2, 2013

Citations

Criminal No.: CR-12-00772 PSG (N.D. Cal. May. 2, 2013)