Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00759/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00759-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laurie Griffen
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

[PROP.] ORDER

[CR 05 0759] [WHA] 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURIE GRIFFEN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 05 0759 WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER

FINDING EXCLUDABLE TIME;

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)

The parties appeared before the Court on December 21, 2005 for defendant Laurie

Griffen’s initial appearance and arraignment on the indictment in the above-captioned

case. Assistant Federal Public Defender Daniel Blank appeared on behalf of the

defendant, who was present. Assistant United States Attorney Susan Badger appeared on

behalf of the United States.

The Court arraigned the defendant on the charges in the indictment, advised her of

the maximum penalties, and entered a not guilty plea on her behalf. The defendant signed

Case 3:05-cr-00759-WHA Document 6 Filed 12/22/05 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

[PROP.] ORDER

[CR 05 0759] [WHA] 2

a $50,000 unsecured bond and promised to abide by the conditions on the bond. The

Court directed the parties to appear before United States District Judge William Alsup on

January 3, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. for further proceedings. The parties requested that the time

between December 21, 2005 and January 3, 2006 be excluded from the time requirements

of the Speedy Trial Act due to unavailability of both counsel during the holidays.

The Court finds that good cause appearing, the time between December 21, 2005

and January 3, 2006 is excluded from the time requirements of the Speedy Trial Act. (18

U.S.C. § 3161). The Court finds that in light of the unavailability of counsel for both the

government and the defendant during the holiday season, the time is appropriately

excluded in order to provide for continuity of counsel and reasonable time necessary for

effective preparation, taking into account due diligence. The ends of justice served by

granting of such continuance and exclusion outweighs the best interest of the public and

the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELIZABETH LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

December 22, 2005

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANTED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:05-cr-00759-WHA Document 6 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 2