USA v. Carlton

United States District Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNLA.
OAKLAND DIVISION
4
Case No.	)	United States of America,
FILED)
STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
)	Plaintif,f
)	V.
OCT 1 4 2025	)
-r^ ) CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COUR-
NORTH DISTRICT OF CALIFOR^
OAKLAND OFFICE
stated by the parties on the record on the court excludes time under the Speedy
and finds that the ends of justice served by the
)	Defendanl(s).
For the reasons
Trial Act from \*> f 4 (
continuance outw'eigh 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):
to
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 18 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. § 316T(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.
S-ee 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
the number of
the existence of novel questions of fact
Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.	necessary
S-ee 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
With the consent of the defendant, and taking into account the public interest 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 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. Crhn. P. 5.1; 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
y
0	DATED:
Kaudis Westmore
United States Magistrate Judge
STIPULATED:
As^stant United States Attorney	Attorney for Defendant
V. 1/10/2019
Case 4:26-cr-00326-AMO Document 8 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 1