USA v. Depina

United States District Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
Case No.	)	United States of America,
JILED
OCT 1 3 202S
●
	)
STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TI
UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
)	Plainti,ff
)	V.
)
Defendant(s).
) CLERK, U.S. DiSTRiCT COURT
NORTH DiSTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND OFFICE
For the reasons stated by the parties on the record on 10/^ 3/ lrC& , the court excludes time under the Speedy
Trial Act from \0 /{Y/'ta to | O/Z VXA and finds that the ends ofjustice served by the
continuance outw'eigh 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.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
)
the number of
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
itself within 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. § 3161(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,
to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
X Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3l61(h)(7)(B)(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 — finds good cause for extending
the time limits for a preliminaiy 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).
the existence of novel questions of fact
IT IS SO OILDERED.
IT)	DATED: \=?
iandis TAs!^^estmore
hited States Magistrate Judge
STPULATED:
sistant United States Attorney	for Defendant	Att<
V. 1/10/2019
Case 4:26-cr-00513-JST Document 14 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 1