Opinion
CR.NO.S-09-407-KJM
05-09-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, v. MARIA DEL ROCIO AECEO-RANGEL, et al., DEFENDANTS.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Samuel Wong ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF Michael D. Long Attorney for Defendant Maria Del Rocio Arceo-Rnagel Hayes H. Gable, III Attorney for Defendant Erica Beatriz Martinez-Rangel Michael B. Bigelow Attorney for Defendant Martin Garcia-Chavez Dina L. Santos Attorney for Defendant Isidro Gutierrez-Valencia John R. Manning Attorney for Defendant Cruz Manzo-Gonzalez Jesse IS. Ortiz, III Attorney for Defendant Alfredo Gallardo-Sosa Dan F. Koukol Attorney for Defendant Walter Maruicio Lopez-Perez Danny D. Brace, Jr. Attorney for Defendant Gumersindo Perez-Herrera Kirk McAllister Attorney for Defendant Jorge Heriberto Andrade-Torres Clemente M. Jimenez Attorney for Defendant Ricardo Castellanos-Cordova Carl E. Larson Attorney for defendant Jesus Munoz-Castanon James R. Greiner Attorney for Defendant Pedro Gutierrez-Valencia
JAMES R. GREINER, ESQ.
CALIFORNIA STATE BAR NUMBER 123357
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES R. GREINER
555 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 290
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825
TELEPHONE: (916)649-2006
FAX: (916) 920-7951
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
PEDRO GUTIERREZ-VALENCIA
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER TO MODIFY REPLY BRIEF
DATE AND HEARING DATE FOR
APPEAL OF THE
MAGISTRATE RULING ON
DISCOVERY MOTION AND SET
HEARING TO WEDNESDAY
JUNE 5, 2013
PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION
The parties to this litigation, the United States of America, represented by Assistant United States Attorney, Mr. Samuel Wong, and the defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants): 1) Maria Del Rocio Arceo-Rangel, represented by her attorney Mr. Michael D. Long; 2) Erica Beatriz Martinez-Rangel represented by her attorney Mr. Hayes H. Gable, III; 3) Martin Garcia-Chavez represented by his attorney Mr. Michael B. Bigelow; 4) Isidro Gutierrez-Valencia represented by his attorney Ms. Dina L. Santos; 5) Cruz Manzo-Gonzales represented by his attorney Mr. John R. Manning; 6) Alfredo Gallardo-Sosa represented by his attorney Mr. Jesse S. Ortiz, III; 7) Walter Maruicio Lopez-Perez represented by Mr. Dan F. Koukol; 8) Gumersindo Perez-Herrera represented by his attorney Mr. Danny D. Brace, Jr.; 9) Jorge Heriberto Andrade-Torres represented by his attorney Mr, Kirk McAllister; 10) Ricardo Castellanos-Cordova represented by his attorney Mr. Clemente M. Jimenez; 11) Jesus Munoz-Castanon represented by his attorney Mr. Carl E. Larson and 12) Pedro Gutierrez-Valencia represented by his attorney, Mr. James R. Greiner, hereby agree and stipulate that the Court can vacate both of the status conference and hearing date presently set for May 22, 2013, and adopt the following briefing and hearing schedule on the Appeal from the Magistrate Ruling on the Defense Discovery motion:
Defense reply May 22, 2013
Hearing on Appeal and Status Conference June 5, 2013
TIME EXCLUDED UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
First, there is still pending in front of this Court a motion to suppress evidence with exhibits filed on and occurring in October 10, 2012, See Docket's #'s 270, 271, 272. The time under the Speedy Trial Act time is automatically excluded from October 10, 2012 to the hearing of that motion. In addition, there is a Appeal from the Magistrate's ruling on the defense discovery motion, the Appeal was filed on and occurring in December 27, 2012, See Docket # 298, and to which the above briefing schedule is set out for with the hearing date of May 22, 2013. Time is excluded at least until June 5, 2013 on the Appeal from the Magistrate's ruling.
Thus, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(1)(D), delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of such motion and Local Code E, time under the Speedy Trial Act is excluded from the filing of the motion to suppress on and occurring in October 10, 2012 to and including June 5, 2013.
In addition, once the Court rules on the Appeal, the parties have agreed to further briefing on a schedule to be determined on the motion to Suppress filed on October 10, 2012. The Court is available on June 5, 2013.
Finally, all counsel have given authority to sign this Stipulation and Proposed Order with no objections to James R. Greiner on each attorney's respective behalf.
Respectfully submitted:
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By: __________
Samuel Wong
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF
____________________
Michael D. Long
Attorney for Defendant
Maria Del Rocio Arceo-Rnagel
____________________
Hayes H. Gable, III
Attorney for Defendant
Erica Beatriz Martinez-Rangel
__________________
Michael B. Bigelow
Attorney for Defendant Martin Garcia-Chavez
____________________
Dina L. Santos
Attorney for Defendant Isidro Gutierrez-Valencia
___________________
John R. Manning
Attorney for Defendant Cruz Manzo-Gonzalez
___________________
Jesse IS. Ortiz, III
Attorney for Defendant Alfredo Gallardo-Sosa
___________________
Dan F. Koukol
Attorney for Defendant Walter Maruicio Lopez-Perez
___________________
Danny D. Brace, Jr.
Attorney for Defendant Gumersindo Perez-Herrera
___________________
Kirk McAllister
Attorney for Defendant
Jorge Heriberto Andrade-Torres
___________________
Clemente M. Jimenez
Attorney for Defendant Ricardo Castellanos-Cordova
___________________
Carl E. Larson
Attorney for defendant Jesus Munoz-Castanon
___________________
James R. Greiner
Attorney for Defendant Pedro Gutierrez-Valencia
ORDER
The Court, having received, read, and considered the agreement and stipulation of the parties hereby adopts the parties' agreements and stipulations in their entirety as the Court's order, and orders that the status conferences on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 is vacated, and a Hearing for the Appeal from the Magistrate Ruling on the defense discovery motion is set for Wednesday, June 5, 2013, at 9:00 a.m..
This Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting such continuance outweigh the best interests of both the public and all of the defendants in a speedy trial.
The Court finds that there is presently pending before this Court a motion to suppress filed on and occurring in October 10, 2012, Docket #'s 270, 271 and 272, and an Appeal from the Magistrate's Ruling filed on and occurring in December 27, 2012, See Docket # 298, with the Appeal scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, May 22, 2013. The time under the Speedy Trial Act is automatically excluded because of the pending motion that has been filed by the defense and time continues to be excluded at least to the hearing date of Wednesday, June 5, 2013 pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(1)(D), delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of such motion and Local Code E.
The Court continues to find:
(1) this case is unusual and so complex within the meaning of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and Local Code T-2, and that it would be unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established in the Speedy Trial Act; and
(2) additional time is needed to allow defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of
due diligence within the meaning of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4. These findings are due to the number of defendants, twelve (12), the volume of discovery (including approximately three large binders of documents, recordings of Spanish language interviews of multiple defendants, numerous photographs, and hundreds of potential trial exhibits), the complex legal issues, the anticipated filing of additional pre-trial motions by the parties, and the need to conduct further investigation in the case.
The Court continues the exclusion of the time under the Speedy Trial Act period from September 5, 2012, (Docket # 259), the oral making of the GPS Suppression Motion, up to, and including, Wednesday, June 5, 2013, from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to Title, 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local code T-2 (unusual and complex case) and Local Code T-4 (reasonable time necessary for defense attorney preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence) and Title 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(1)(D), delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of such motion and Local Code E.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
KIMBERLLY J. MUELLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE