Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00725/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00725-19/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Trevor Graham
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 06-0725 SI

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CASBN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

MATTHEW A. PARRELLA (NYSBN 2040855)

JEFFREY D. NEDROW (CASBN 161299)

JEFFREY R. FINIGAN (CASBN 168285)

Assistant United States Attorneys

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7232

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

Email: jeffrey.finigan@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TREVOR GRAHAM,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Criminal No. CR 06-0725 SI

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

The above-captioned matter came before the Court on February 1, 2008, for status. The

defendant was represented by William Keane, Esq., and the government was represented by

Jeffrey Finigan, Assistant United States Attorney. The Court set a briefing schedule for a defense

discovery motion and confirmed the May 19, 2208, trial date. The defense discovery motion is to

be filed on February 8, 2008.

The Court made a finding that the time from and including February 1, 2008, through

Case 3:06-cr-00725-SI Document 90 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 2 Case 3:06-cr-00725-SI Document 92 Filed 02/06/08 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 06-0725 SI 2

February 8, 2008, should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 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. The 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 agree and stipulate that the additional time is appropriate and necessary under

Title 18, United States Code, § 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.

The parties further agree and stipulate that this time exclusion is in addition to the time

exclusion ordered by the Court on December 14, 2007, at which time the Court excluded time for

the same reasons set forth herein from and including December 14, 2007, through and including

the trial date of May 19, 2008. The parties include this additional acknowledgment because they

did not execute a written stipulation to this effect following the December 14, 2007, hearing.

DATED: February 4, 2008 /s/

WILLIAM P. KEANE

Counsel for Trevor Graham

DATED: February 4, 2008 /s/

JEFFREY R. FINIGAN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

So ordered.

DATED:

SUSAN ILLSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00725-SI Document 90 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 2 of 2 Case 3:06-cr-00725-SI Document 92 Filed 02/06/08 Page 2 of 2