USA v. LNU

United States District Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
Case No.	)	United States of America,
)
STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING l|w|iL £ D
UNDER LITE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
)	Plaintif,f
)	V.
) OCT 08 im
)
)	Defendant(s). CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the reasons stated by the parties on the record on Q , the court excludes time undeWi^Sp^^f^^
Trial Act from SC to and finds that the ends of justice served by the
continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial See 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A). The court makes this finding and bases this continuance on the following factor(s):
Failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.
S-ee 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
The case is so unusual or so complex, due to [check applicable reasons]
defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or
or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or the trial
itselfwithin the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).
Failure to grant a continuance would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel,
taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 316'l(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel, given
counsel’s other scheduled case commitments, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
the number of
the existence of novel questions of fact
Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.	necessary
See 18 U.S.C. § 3l61(h)(7)(TB)(iv).
With the consent of the defendant, and taking into account the public interest in the prompt
disposition of criminal cases, the court sets the preliminary hearing to the date set forth in the first
paragraph and — based on the parties’ showing of good cause — fmds good cause for extending
the time limits for a preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and for
extending the 30-day time period for an indictment under the Speedy Trial Act (based on the
exclusions set forth above). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1; 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).
X
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
' Kandis A^^estmoreUnited States Magistrate Judge
STIPULATED:
Assistant UniteAStates Attorney	Attorney for Defendant
V. 1/10/2019
Case 4:26-mj-71185-MAG Document 16 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 1