You're viewing Docket Item 16 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

On August 13, 2013, the parties in this case appeared before the Court for a status

conference. Defense counsel informed the Court of her intention to file a motion to dismiss the
Indictment. The parties set forth a briefing schedule, in which Defense counsel is to file a
motion to dismiss by or on September 27, 2013, the government is to file its response within two
weeks thereafter, by or on October 11, 2013, and Defense counsel is to file any further reply by
or on October 25, 2013. As a result, the Court set the matter to November 5, 2013, for a hearing
on the motion to dismiss.

The parties agreed to exclude the period of time prior to the filing of motions, between

August 13, 2013, and September 27, 2013, from any time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C.

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

§ 3161. The parties represented that granting an exclusion would allow the reasonable time
necessary for effective preparation of counsel and continuity of counsel. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Granting an exclusion of time will also be appropriate once the parties have
filed their motions and such motions are pending before the Court. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3161(h)(1)(D). The parties also 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.
SO STIPULATED:

MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney

DATED: August 13, 2013

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

DATED: August 13, 2013

________/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 August 13, 2013, hearing, the Court finds that the
exclusion from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 of the period from August 13,
2013, through September 27, 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). In addition, an exclusion of time during the pendency
of the motions filed by the parties is appropriate for the time period between September 27,
2013, and November 5, 2013. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:_________________


8/14/13

_______________________________________
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