USA v. Constantin

United States District Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
OX mC	CaseNo.	)	United States of America,
)
STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING TiM
UNDER TILE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
)	Plainti,ff
)	V.
OCT 09 2026	)
owuT ) CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND OFFICE
)	Defendant(s). 0.
, the court excludes time under the Speedy
nd finds that the ends of justice served by the
defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §
For the reasons stated by the parties on the record on
Trial Act from. oxx ^1p23o to ac?r
continuance oulAveigh the best interest of the public and the
3i61(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.
18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
The case is so unusual or so complex, due to [check applicable reasons]
defendants,
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 I8U.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,
te 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence,
to 18 U.S.C. § 3161Ch)(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 fiist
paragraph and — based on the parties’ showing of good cause — finds good cause for extending
the time limits for a preliminary 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, Crira. P. 5.1; 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).
the number of
the existence of novel questions of fact	the nature of the prosecution, or
K
y
IT IS SO ORDERED. /
DATED: Y
Kandis A/Westmore
United States Magistrate Judge
STIPULATED:
Assistant United Shies Attorney
V. 1/10/2019
Case 4:26-mj-71187-MAG Document 21 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 1