Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20111020_0002176.NCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-23 06:32:47
Document Index: 612225437

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 27', '§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§3161', '§3161']

| United States of America v. Luis Flores Miranda
United States of America v. Luis Flores Miranda
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,PLAINTIFF,v.LUIS FLORES MIRANDA, A/K/A LUIS MANUEL GARCIA MIRANDA, A/K/A JONAS FLORES GUILLEN, A/K/A ANTONIO FERNANDEZ, A/K/A ANTONIO FLORES, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Edward M. Chen United States District Judge
MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney 2 MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) 3 Chief, Criminal Division 4 LOWELL C. POWELL (CABN 235446) Special Assistant United States Attorney 5 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 6 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-7368 7 Facsimile: (415) 436-7234 E-Mail: lowell.powell2@usdoj.gov 8 Attorneys for the United States of America 9 10
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ) ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER U.S.C. § 3161
On October 19, 2011, the parties in this case appeared before the
Court. At that time, the
Court set the matter to November 30, 2011. The parties have
agreed to exclude the period of 24 time between October 19, 2011 and
November 30, 2011, from any time limits applicable under 25
U.S.C. § 3161. The parties represented that granting the exclusion
would allow the 26 reasonable time necessary for effective preparation
of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 27
3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties also agree that the ends of justice
served by granting such an 28 exclusion of time outweigh the best
interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). At the hearing, the Court made findings
For the reasons stated above and at the October 19, 2011 hearing, the
Court finds that the
exclusion from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 of
the period from October 19, 4
2011 through November 30, 2011 is warranted and that the ends of
justice served by the 5 continuance outweigh the best interests of the
public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 6
U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A). Denying the requested exclusion of time would
deprive the parties of the 7 reasonable time necessary for effective
preparation, taking into account the exercise of due 8 diligence. 18
U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Edward M. Chen Judge O