USA v. LNU

United States District Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
CaseNo.	United States of America,
JilLED
●
	)
STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TI
UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
)	Plainti,ff
)	V.
Defendant(s).
OCT 14 2026	)
) CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND OFFICE
For the reasons stated by the parties on the record on the court excludes time under the Speedy
Trial Act from to OCT 7^^ and finds that the ends ofjustice served by the
continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial See 18U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A). The court makes this finding and bases this continuance on the following factor(s):
-Failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.
S’eelSU.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
The case is so unusual or so complex, due to [check applicable reasons]
defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or
or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or the tiial
itself within the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).
Failure to grant a continuance would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel,
talcing into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel, given
counsel’s other scheduled case commitments, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
)
the number of
the existence of novel questions of fact
X Failure to grant a continuance would uiueasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.	necessary
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
With the consent of the defendant, and talcing into account the public mterest in the prompt
disposition of criminal cases, the court sets the preliminary hearing to the date set forth in the first
paragraph and — based on the parties’ showing of good cause — finds good cause for extendmg
the time limits for a preluninary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and for
extending the 30-day time period for an indictment under the Speedy Trial Act (based on the
exclusions set forth above). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1; IS U.S.C. § 3161(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 1
Kaudis'^ W estmore
United States Magistrate Judge
Assistant Uimed States Au
STIPULATED:
r Defbndant omey	Attorae-
V. 1/10/2019
Case 4:26-mj-71185-MAG Document 18 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 1