Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cr-00653/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cr-00653-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abel Lopez-Menera
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 and [Proposed] Order Excluding Time

CR 07-0653-SI 1

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (SCBN 9990)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

TAREK J. HELOU (CABN 218225)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7071

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

 Tarek.J.Helou@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABEL LOPEZ-MENERA, 

a/k/a Jose Lopez-Martinez,

a/k/a Bernabe Banderas Lopez,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR No. 07-0653-SI

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3161

On November 9, 2007, the parties in this case appeared before the Court and stipulated that

time from November 9, 2007 through November 16, 2007 should be excluded from Speedy Trial

Act calculations because defense counsel needs adequate time to review discovery that the

United States would produce after the parties’ November 9, 2007 court appearance. The parties

represented to the Court that the length of the requested continuance was the reasonable amount

of time necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the exercise of

Case 3:07-cr-00653-SI Document 10 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 2 Case 3:07-cr-00653-SI Document 11 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 2
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 and [Proposed] Order Excluding Time

CR 07-0653-SI 2

due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). The parties also agreed that the ends of justice

served by this continuance outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

SO STIPULATED. Respectfully submitted, 

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS

United States Attorney

DATED: November 15, 2007 /s/ 

TAREK J. HELOU

Assistant United States Attorney 

DATED: November 15, 2007 /s/ 

ELIZABETH FALK

Attorney for Defendant Abel Lopez-Menera

As the Court noted on November 9, 2007, and for the reasons stated above, the Court finds

that the ends of justice served by the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The Court also finds that time from November 9,

2007 through November 16, 2007 should be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations for

effective preparation of defense counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). Failing to grant the

requested continuance would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage

of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

SO ORDERED.

DATED:______________ _____________________________________

THE HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cr-00653-SI Document 10 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 2 of 2 Case 3:07-cr-00653-SI Document 11 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2