Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00679/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00679-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Luis Rivera-Aguilar
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 No. 06-0679 SI 1

KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321)

United States Attorney

MARK L. KROTOSKI (CSBN 138549) 

Chief, Criminal Division

JULIE A. ARBUCKLE (CSBN 193425)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7102

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CR No.: 06-0679 SI

)

)

Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

) ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

v. )

)

JOSE LUIS RIVERA-AGUILAR, )

)

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

On October 20, 2006, the parties in this case appeared before the Court and stipulated that

time should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculations from October 20, 2006 to

December 22, 2006 in the interests of justice and for effective preparation of counsel because

defense counsel and the United States require time to obtain additional information relevant to

Defendant Jose Luis Rivera-Aguilar’s criminal history and offense level, including a pre-plea

criminal history report from the United States Probation Office. The parties represented that

granting the continuance was the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of both

defense counsel and the United States, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18

Case 3:06-cr-00679-SI Document 6 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 2
 Case 3:06-cr-00679-SI Document 7 Filed 10/26/06 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 No. 06-0679 SI 2

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). The parties also agreed that the ends of justice served by granting

such a continuance outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

SO STIPULATED:

KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

DATED: 10/24/06 /S/ Julie A. Arbuckle 

JULIE A. ARBUCKLE

Assistant United States Attorney 

DATED: 10/23/06 /S/ Daniel Blank 

DANIEL BLANK

Attorney for Defendant Jose Luis

Rivera-Aguilar

As the Court found on October 20, 2006, and for the reasons stated above, the Court finds

that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial and that time should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act

calculations from October 20, 2006 to December 22, 2006 in the interests of justice and for

effective preparation of defense counsel and the United States. See 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(8)(A). 

The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for

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

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

SO ORDERED.

DATED:______________ _____________________________________

 Susan Illston 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cr-00679-SI Document 6 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 2
 Case 3:06-cr-00679-SI Document 7 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2