USA v. Perez Espinosa

United States Distrjct Court
NORTtlERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OARXAND DIVISION
Cf~ oo'^'^S AMO
STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TI
UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
Case No.	)	United States of America,
^flLED)
)	Plaintif,f
)	V.
OCT 09 202(i	)
"Jcxvj ’ <r Ikre-L
Defendant(s).
For the reasons stated by the parties on the record on l-OVC ^ the court excludes time under the Speedy
Trial Act from 7ol C to Pt?.,. vM ^ and finds that the ends ofjustice served by the
outvv'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):
) CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI/J
OAKLAND OFFICE
continuance
Failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage ofJustice.
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
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. § 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).
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.
tolSU.S.C. §3l61(h)(7)(B)(iv).
the number of
the existence of novel questions of fact
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
extendin^^ the 30-day time period for an indictment under the Speedy Trial Act (based on the
Crim. P.5.1; 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).	exclusions set forth above). See Fed. R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
OcL	DATED: / KandkA. Westmore
United ^ates Magistrate Jud^
-
2^
STIPULATED:
Assistant United States Attorney	AttorneWfbr DefeiMant
V. 1/10/2019
Case 4:26-cr-00445-AMO Document 10 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 1