USA v. Buzatu

United States District Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
Ut
CaseNo.	)	United States of America, ■I«
)
STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING Tl|
UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
)	Plaintij,f
)	V.
) OCT 07 202S
\u\) )
)	Defendant(s). u.s. district court
NORTH gJSTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the reasons stated by the parties on the record on ^ i , the court excludes time underinfe'^^ffe^S^'^E
Trial Act from .PcT ^ to 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 18 U.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.
tolSU.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 trial
itself within the time limits established by this section. See IS U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).
Failure to grant a continuance would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel,
taking 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,
to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Failure to grant a continuance would uni'easonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence,
to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
the number of
the existence of novel questions of fact
V
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 m the first
paragi'aph and — based on the parties’ showing of good cause — finds good cause for extending
the time limits for a preliminaiy 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; 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
i	DATED:
'kancE^. Westmore
United States Magistrate Judge
\
\	STIPULATED:
Assistant Uhit\d States Attorney	Attorney for Defendant
V. 1/10/2019
Case 4:26-mj-70846-MAG Document 26 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 1