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

U.S. v. VALDES,

PROPOSED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM MARCH 22, 2010 TO APRIL 26, 2010, 

CR No. 09-0798 MHP

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

DENISE MARIE BARTON (MABN 634052)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7200

Fax: (415) 436-7234

E-Mail: denise.barton@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JESUS AGUIRRE VALDES,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR No. 09-0798 MHP

PROPOSED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

FROM MARCH 22, 2010 TO APRIL 26,

2010 

On March 22, 2010, Defendant Jesus Aguirre Valdes, represented by attorney Shana

Keating, and the United States, represented by Assistant United States Attorney Denise Marie

Barton appeared before the Court for a Status Hearing. At the hearing, counsel for the defense

advised the Court that government counsel had provided the defense with a timely plea offer but

that due to obligations in a pending complex, multi-defendant case, that she had not had

sufficient time to discuss outstanding issues with government counsel and continue discussions

regarding resolution of the matter.

For all these reasons, the parties requested a continuance until April 26, 2010 and agreed

that time was properly excluded between March 22, 2010 and April 26, 2010 under the Speedy

Case 3:09-cr-00798-MHP Document 18 Filed 03/30/10 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

U.S. v. VALDES,

PROPOSED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM MARCH 22, 2010 TO APRIL 26, 2010, 

CR No. 09-0798 MHP 2

Trial Clock for continuity of counsel and to counsel reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

Based upon the representation of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court finds that

failing to exclude the time between March 22, 2010 and April 26, 2010 would unreasonably deny

the parties continuity of counsel and the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation,

taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), (B)(iv). The

Court further finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the time between March 22, 2010

and April 26, 2010 from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the best interests of

the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

time between March 22, 2010 and April 26, 2010 shall be excluded from computation under the

Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). 

SO ORDERED:

DATED: March ___, 2010

_____________________________________

HONORABLE MARILYN H. PATEL

United States District Court Judge

30

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00798-MHP Document 18 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2