CHARLES BREYER, District Judge
The parties stipulate and agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:
1. The parties appeared before this Court on January 25, 2006.
2. At that time, counsel for the defendant indicated that the parties are continuing to discuss a potential resolution of the matter and requested that the matter be continued until February 15, 2006 for trial setting or change of plea. The parties moved that this same time period be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B) for effective preparation of counsel.
3. In light of the foregoing facts, the parties would be denied effective preparation absent the exclusion of time. Accordingly, the ends of justice would be served by the Court excluding the proposed time period. These ends outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).
4. In addition, this matter was previously assigned to The Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, was scheduled for a hearing before Judge Hamilton on January 4, 2006, and this hearing later was vacated when this case was related to United States v. Nasir Javaid, CR-05-0770-CRB, pending before this Court. Accordingly, the parties requested at the January 25, 2006 appearance that the three-week period from January 4, 2006 until January 25, 2006 be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act for administrative reasons, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B).
5. In light of the foregoing facts, the ends of justice would be served by the Court excluding the proposed time period. These ends outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).
6. For all of the reasons stated, the time period from January 4, 2006 through February 15, 2006 shall be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act.
SO STIPULATED.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.