You're viewing Docket Item 10 from the case USA v. Garcia-Suarez. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)
United States Attorney
J. DOUGLAS WILSON (DCBN 412811)
Chief, Criminal Division
JANAKI GANDHI (CABN 272246)
Special Assistant United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (415) 436-7050
Facsimile: (415) 436-7234
E-Mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
v.

JOSE ALFREDO GARCIA-SUAREZ,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)

No. CR 13-0423 RS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 18
U.S.C. § 3161

The parties in this case appeared before the Court on July 9, 2013, for the defendant’s

initial appearance before this Court and a status conference. At that time, the parties represented
to the Court that granting exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act would be appropriate.
Due to an error regarding the defendant’s appearance with this Court, the defendant, who had
appeared in magistrate court the same morning, was transported back to his place of custody by
the U.S. Marshal Service. Consequently, the defendant was not present for his hearing. In
addition, defense counsel requested additional time to review the discovery recently disclosed by
the government.
//

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
CR 13-0423 RS

As a result, the parties requested the Court to set the matter out for two weeks, and

agreed that granting exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act would allow the reasonable
time necessary for effective preparation of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The
parties further agreed that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time
outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A). At the hearing, the Court made findings consistent with this agreement, and set
the matter to July 23, 2013.
SO STIPULATED:

DATED: July 9, 2013

DATED: July 9, 2013

MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney

________/s/___________________
JANAKI GANDHI
Special Assistant United States Attorney

________/s/____________________
JODI LINKER
Attorney for Defendant Jose Alfredo Garcia-Suarez

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
CR 13-0423 RS

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above and at the July 9, 2013, hearing, the Court finds that the
exclusion from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 of the period from July 9,
2013, and July 23, 2013, is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance
outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3161(h)(7)(A). Denying the requested exclusion of time would deprive the parties of the
reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due
diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).



IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:_______________


7/11/13

_______________________________________
THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
CR 13-0423 RS