Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cr-00547/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cr-00547-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
USA
Plaintiff
Duke Deshawn Woods
Defendant

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

CR 04-372 VRW

KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321)

United States Attorney

EUMI L. CHOI (WVBN 0722) 

Chief, Criminal Division

SUSAN R. JERICH (CSBN 188462) 

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7158

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

Email: susan.jerich@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No.: CR 05 00547 PJH

)

Plaintiff, ) PARTIES’ STIPULATION AND 

) PROPOSED ORDER EXCLUDING 

v. ) TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

)

DUKE DESHAWN WOODS, )

)

 Defendant. )

____________________________________) 

The parties stipulate and agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:

1. The parties last appeared before this Court on January 11, 2006, for case status. 

At that time, the Court agreed to continue the matter until February 1, 2006 for change of plea or

trial setting.

2. On January 11, 2006, the defendant requested an exclusion of time based upon effective

preparation of counsel. The request was granted by the Court. 

3. The parties move that the time period from January 11, 2006 through February 1, 2006, be

excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act due to effective preparation of

counsel. 

4. In light of the foregoing facts, the failure to grant the requested exclusion 

Case 4:05-cr-00547-PJH Document 20 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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

CR 05-00547 PJH 2

would unreasonably deny counsel for the defense the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A),

(B)(iv). The ends of justice would be served by the Court excluding the proposed time period. 

These ends outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See id. §

3161(h)(8)(A). 

5. For the reasons stated, the time period from November 2, 2005 through November 30,

2005, shall be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. 

SO STIPULATED.

DATED: 1/23/06 Respectfully Submitted, 

_/s/______________________________

SUSAN R. JERICH

Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: 1/23/06

_/s/_______________________________

RONALD TYLER

Counsel for Defendant 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: __________________________________

HON. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

Judge, United States District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

1/25/06

Case 4:05-cr-00547-PJH Document 20 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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

CR 05-00547 PJH 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the Parties’ Stipulation and Proposed

Order in the case of United States v. Duke Deshawn Woods No. CR 05-00547 PJH, was served

today as follows:

Hand Delivery

Ronald Tyler, Esq. 

Federal Public Defender’s Office

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on January 23, 2006 at San Francisco, California.

 /s/ 

Rawaty Yim

United States Attorney’s Office

Case 4:05-cr-00547-PJH Document 20 Filed 01/25/06 Page 3 of 3