Opinion
CR-12-0459 EMC
03-25-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANDREA C. MOHR, Defendant.
MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division THOMAS E. STEVENS (CABN 168362) Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for the United States
MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)
United States Attorney
MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)
Chief, Criminal Division
THOMAS E. STEVENS (CABN 168362)
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorney for the United States
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
WHEREAS, the above-captioned matter came before the Court on March 20, 2013, for status conference. The United States was represented by AUSA Tom Stevens, and defendant Mohr, who was present, was represented by Marc Axelbaum. The Court set the case for a further status conference on April 24, 2013, and for jury trial on May 31, 2013.
WHEREAS, during the previous status conference on February 27, 2013, the Court excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. § 3161) from that date through and including March 20, 2013, for continuity of counsel and counsel's effective preparation.
WHEREAS, counsel for the United States and for Mohr requested the continuance to the April 24 date, after noting that Mohr had requested, and the government agreed to produce, additional discovery.
NOW THEREFOR, based upon the need for Mohr's counsel effectively to prepare in connection with the additional discovery, the parties seek a further exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, through and including April 24, 2013.
SO STIPULATED.
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
______________________
Thomas E. Stevens
Assistant United States Attorney
______________________
Marc Axelbaum
Counsel to Andrea Mohr
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Based upon the above stipulation, the Court finds that the time from and including March 20, 2013, to and including April 24, 2013, should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), because the ends ofjustice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. The findings are based upon the need for the defendant to have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE