From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Yoo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 8, 2011
No. CR 09-01118 DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011)

Opinion

No. CR 09-01118 DLJ

11-08-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BEOB JOON YOO, Defendant.

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division SUSAN KNIGHT (CSBN 209013) Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff


MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)

United States Attorney

MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)

Chief, Criminal Division

SUSAN KNIGHT (CSBN 209013)

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

SAN JOSE VENUE

The undersigned parties respectfully request that the status hearing currently scheduled for November 8, 2011 be continued to November 29, 2011. The reason for the continuance is that defense counsel Patrick Valencia is continuing his investigation, and needs additional time to review the evidence in the case. In addition, the Court is unavailable on November 8, 2011. The parties also request an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from November 8, 2011 through November 29, 2011. 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

SUSAN KNIGHT

Assistant United States Attorney

PATRICK VALENCIA

Counsel for Mr. Yoo

ORDER

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the status hearing in United States v. Beob Joon Yoo scheduled for November 8, 2011 is continued to November 29, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from November 8, 2011 through November 29, 2011. The Court finds, based on the aforementioned reasons, that the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel 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.

D. LOWELL JENSEN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Yoo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 8, 2011
No. CR 09-01118 DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Yoo

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BEOB JOON YOO, Defendant.

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

Date published: Nov 8, 2011

Citations

No. CR 09-01118 DLJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011)