Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00188/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00188-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isaac Nicholas Garcia
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 06-00188 SI

KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321)

United States Attorney

MARK L. KROTOSKI (CSBN 138549)

Chief, Criminal Division

WILLIAM C. MARTIN (ILBN 6272668)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7220

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

Email: william.c.martin@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ISAAC NICHOLAS GARCIA,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Criminal No. CR 06-00188 SI

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

The above-captioned matter came before the Court on May 26, 2006 for status and the

possible setting of a motion schedule or trial date. The defendant was represented by Barry J.

Portman and the government was represented by William C. Martin, Assistant United States

Attorney. Mr. David Fermino, defendant’s regular counsel, was unavailable. This case was then

continued until June 2, 2006, at 11:00 A.M. for status and the possible setting of a motion

schedule or trial date.

The Court made a finding on the record that the time from May 26 through and

including June 2, 2006, should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.

Case 3:06-cr-00188-SI Document 11 Filed 05/31/2006 Page 1 of 2
 Case 3:06-cr-00188-SI Document 13 Filed 06/01/06 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 06-00188 SI 2

§ 3161(h)(8)(A), because the ends of justice served by taking such action outweighed the best

interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. That finding was based on the 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 pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

The parties hereby agree to and request that the case be continued until June 2, 2006,

and that the exclusion of time until then be granted. The parties agree and stipulate that the

additional time is appropriate and necessary under Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161(h)(8)(A), because the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interest

of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. This time exclusion will allow defense counsel

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

continuity of counsel for the defendant.

DATED: May 30, 2006 /s/ 

BARRY J. PORTMAN

Attorney for Defendant

DATED: May 30, 2006 /s/ 

WILLIAM C. MARTIN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

So ordered.

DATED: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00188-SI Document 11 Filed 05/31/2006 Page 2 of 2
 Case 3:06-cr-00188-SI Document 13 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 2