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 FEBRUARY 8, 2010 TO MARCH 22, 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 FEBRUARY 8, 2010 TO MARCH

22, 2010 

On February 8, 2010, Defendant Jesus Aguirre Valdes, represented by attorney Shana

Keating, and the United States, represented by Assistant United States Attorney Matthew

McCarthy appeared before the Court for a Status Hearing. At the hearing, the United States

advised the Court that new counsel for the government had been assigned to the case upon the

departure of prior government counsel; that new government counsel was reviewing the file; and

that the parties were in discussions to resolve this matter. 

For all these reasons, the parties requested a continuance until March 22, 2010 and

agreed that time was properly excluded between February 8, 2010 and March 22, 2010 under the

Speedy Trial Clock for continuity of counsel and to afford government and defense counsel

Case 3:09-cr-00798-MHP Document 17 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 FEBRUARY 8, 2010 TO MARCH 22, 2010, 

CR No. 09-0798 MHP 2

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 February 8, 2010 and March 22, 2010 would unreasonably

deny the government continuity of counsel and would deny all counsel 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 February 8, 2010 and March 22, 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 February 8, 2010 and March 22,

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 17 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2