Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00803/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00803-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tammy A. Thomas
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

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (SCBN 9990)

United States Attorney

MARK L. KROTOSKI (CSBN 138549)

Chief, Criminal Division

MATTHEW A. PARRELLA (NYSBN 2040855)

JEFFREY D. NEDROW (CSBN 161299)

JEFFREY R. FINIGAN (CSBN 168285)

Assistant United States Attorneys

150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900

San Jose, CA 95113

Telephone: (408) 535-5042

FAX: (408) 535-5066

matthew.parrella@usdoj.gov

jeff.nedrow@usdoj.gov

jeffrey.finigan@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. CR-06-0803-SI

)

Plaintiff, )

)[PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

)DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME 

v. )

)

)

TAMMY A. THOMAS, )

)

) 

Defendant. )

 )

The above-captioned matter came before the court on May 25, 2007 for status and trial 

setting. The court granted the defendant’s request to substitute counsel, so the defendant was 

represented by Ethan Balogh, Esq., and the government was represented by Assistant United 

States Attorney Matthew A. Parrella. The matter was continued to July 27, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. in 

this court for further proceedings. 

The Court made a finding that the time from and including May 25, 2007 through and 

including July 27, 2007 should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.

Case 3:06-cr-00803-SI Document 25 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
 Case 3:06-cr-00803-SI Document 26 Filed 05/31/07 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

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). This finding was made upon statements made by counsel for the defendant on 

the record indicating a need for the defendant to have reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and for continuity of counsel under 

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

The additional time is appropriate and necessary under 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(8)(A) because 

the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and 

defendant in a speedy trial. This time exclusion will allow new defense counsel to effectively 

prepare, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and will provide for continuity of 

counsel for the defendant.

It is so ordered.

DATED: ___________________________

SUSAN ILSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cr-00803-SI Document 25 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
 Case 3:06-cr-00803-SI Document 26 Filed 05/31/07 Page 2 of 2