United States v. Yancey

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NATHANIEL YANCEY, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Jan 22, 2007

No. CR 06-011 CW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2007)

Opinion

No. CR 06-011 CW.

January 22, 2007

BARRY J. PORTMAN, Federal Public Defender, HILARY A. FOX, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Oakland, California, GARTH HIRE, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Defendant YANCEY.

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXCLUDE TIME

CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge

This matter is currently scheduled for a status and setting hearing on Monday, January 22, 2007, at 2:30. The parties jointly request that this hearing date be continued two weeks to the new date of February 5, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to afford defendant additional time to complete ongoing investigation, to afford defendant an opportunity to review the tapes that the government has produced, and to afford the parties additional time to explore a negotiated disposition of this case. The parties have been discussing possible resolution and believe that the additional two weeks are necessary to allow those discussions to continue. Mr. Yancey has no objection to the proposed continuance.

The parties further stipulate and agree that the time between January 22 and February 5, 2007 should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act to afford the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B)(iv).

SO STIPULATED.

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures indicated by a "conformed" signature ("/S/") within this efiled document.

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefore, and pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the hearing currently set for Monday, January 22, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. is continued to Monday, February 5, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. in the Federal Courthouse in Oakland, California. The Court further finds that the period from January 22 through February 5, 2007, shall be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (b)(iv), because the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The Court finds, based on the stipulation of the parties, that the continuance is necessary to afford the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.