U.S. v. LIEN

No. CR 16-00393 RS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD JASON LIEN, Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Donald Jason Lien, Defendant, represented by Gabriela Bischof , Federal Public Defender & Jodi Linker , Office of the Federal Public Defender.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Shailika Shah Kotiya , United States Attorney's Office.


STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE MAY 30, 2017 STATUS CONFERENCE TO JUNE 20, 2017, AND TO EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM MAY 10, 2017, TO JUNE 20, 2017

RICHARD SEEBORG, Senior District Judge.

On May 10, 2017, the Court issued a written order denying the defendant Donald Jason Lien's motion to suppress. The Court scheduled a status conference for May 30, 2017 at 2:30 PM. Defense counsel is unavailable on this proposed date, and government counsel is unavailable on Tuesday June 6, 2017. Therefore, the parties agree and jointly request that the status conference be continued until June 5 20, 2017. In addition, the parties agree and jointly request that the time between May 10, 2017, and June 20, 2017, should be excluded in order to provide reasonable time necessary for the effective preparation of counsel, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

For good cause shown, the Court hereby orders that the status hearing in this matter, that is currently scheduled for May 30, 2017, at 2:30 PM, be set for June 20, 2017, at 2:30 PM.

In addition, for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the exclusion of time from May 10, 2017, through and including June 20, 2017, is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny effective preparation of counsel, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases