Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00687/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00687-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bruce Barker
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 06 0687 SI 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRUCE BARKER,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 06 0687 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER FINDING

EXCLUDABLE TIME

UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A)&(B)(iv)

The parties appeared before the Court on December 15, 2006. Assistant United

States Attorney Susan Badger appeared on behalf of the government. Lidia Stiglich

appeared on behalf of the defendant, who was present and out of custody. This was Ms.

Stiglich’s first appearance in the case on behalf of the defendant. On December 14, 2006,

Lidia Stiglich of Stiglich & Hinckley, LLP filed a Notice of Substitution of Counsel re

Defendant Bruce Barker.

Counsel for the government advised the Court that she was scheduled to try the

Case 3:06-cr-00687-SI Document 20 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:06-cr-00687-SI Document 21 Filed 12/21/06 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

[PROP.] ORDER

CR 06 0687 SI 2

case of United States v. Quan, CR 04 0323 WBS starting on January 16, 2007. The Court

in that case has set aside three months for the trial. Accordingly, for the period between

approximately January 16, 2007 and April 16, 2007, government counsel will not be

available to prepare for motions or for trial in the above-captioned case.

Ms. Stiglich advised the Court that she was just coming into the case and had not

yet received discovery. She also stated that between December 15, 2006 and early April

2007, she had commitments in two other cases, including an out-of-district case that

would require considerable time and attention. She estimated that she would need the

time between December 15, 2006 and early April 2007 to become familiar with the

discovery in the instant case, to confer with her client, and to make a determination as to

how her client wishes to proceed in this case. 

The parties requested a continuance of the matter until April 6, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.

before this Court for status. At that time, the parties will be prepared to set the matter for

trial or advise the Court about progress toward resolution. The parties jointly requested

that the time from December 15, 2006 through April 6, 2007 be excluded from the time

requirements of the Speedy Trial Act in order to provide continuity of government

counsel and in order to provide defense counsel reasonable time for effective preparation

taking into account due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(A) & (B)(iv). The defendant

stated that he concurred in the requests to continue the matter and for a finding of

excludable time. 

Upon the motion of the parties and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that the time from December 15, 2006 through April 6, 2007 is excluded

from the time requirements of the Speedy Trial Act in order to provide the government

continuity of counsel and in order to provide defense counsel reasonable time for

///

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cr-00687-SI Document 20 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:06-cr-00687-SI Document 21 Filed 12/21/06 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

[PROP.] ORDER

CR 06 0687 SI 3

effective preparation taking into account due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) &

(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cr-00687-SI Document 20 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 3 of 3
 Case 3:06-cr-00687-SI Document 21 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 3