Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00758/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00758-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lanissa Nelson
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

CR 05-758 JSW

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 05-758 JSW

)

Plaintiff, ) PARTIES’ STIPULATION AND 

) PROPOSED ORDER EXCLUDING 

v. ) TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

)

LANISSA NELSON, )

)

 Defendant. )

____________________________________) 

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

1. The parties appeared before this Court on April 6, 2006. It was the defendant’s initial

appearance on the indictment. 

2. The Court continued the matter until May 11, 2006 for change of plea or trial setting. 

3. Counsel for the defendant indicated that he required additional time to receive and review

the discovery in the matter. The defendant requested an exclusion of time based upon effective

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

4. The parties move that the time period from April 6, 2006 through May 11, 2006, be

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

counsel. 

Case 3:05-cr-00758-JSW Document 8 Filed 04/12/06 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 05-758 JSW 2

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

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). 

6. For the reasons stated, the time period from April 6, 2006 through May 11, 2006, shall be

excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. 

SO STIPULATED.

DATED: 4/10/06 Respectfully Submitted, 

_/s/______________________________

SUSAN R. JERICH

Assistant United States Attorney

DATED:

_/s/_______________________________

ROGER PATTON

Counsel for Defendant 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: __________________________________

HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE 

Judge, United States District Court

April 12, 2006

Case 3:05-cr-00758-JSW Document 8 Filed 04/12/06 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 05-758 JSW 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. Lanissa Nelson, No. CR 05-758 JSW, was served today as

follows:

Via Facsimile

Roger Patton, Esq.

1814 Franklin, Ste. 501 – The Leamington Bldg.

Oakland, CA 94612-3744

Fax: (510) 987-7575

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

Executed on 4/10/06 at San Francisco, California.

 /s/ 

Rawaty Yim

United States Attorney’s Office

Case 3:05-cr-00758-JSW Document 8 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 3