From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Aguilar-Madriz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 18, 2013
No. CR-S-11-365-GEB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2013)

Opinion

No. CR-S-11-365-GEB

04-18-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE AGUILAR-MADRIZ, Defendants.

PRECILIANO MARTINEZ Attorney for Defendant Jose Aguilar-Madriz JOHN R. MANNING Attorney for Defendant Ronald Reeves DAN F. KOUKOL Attorney for Defendant Artemio Aguilar CARL E. LARSON Attorney for Defendant Juan Silva J TONEY Attorney for Defendant Salvador Silva MICHAEL B. BIGELOW Attorney for Defendant David Martinelli SCOTT N. CAMERON Attorney for Defendant Gregorio Zapien-Mendoza HAYES H. GABLE Attorney for Defendant Gabino Cuevas-Hernandez CLEMENTE JIMENEZ Attorney for Defendant Moses Puledo Aguilar ERIN J. RADEKIN Attorney for Defendant Adan Guitierrez Cruz KYLE R. KNAPP Attorney for Defendant Manuel Madriz Sanchez OLAF W. HEDBERG Attorney for Defendant Pedro Aguilar Aguilar Benjamin B. Wagner United States Attorney JUSTIN LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney


JOHN R. MANNING (SBN 220874)
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1111 H Street, # 204
Sacramento, CA. 95814
(916) 444-3994
Fax (916) 447-0931
Attorney for Defendant
RONALD REEVES

STIPULATION REGARDING

EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS

UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT;

[PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER


Date: June 21, 2013

Judge: Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Justin Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Jose Aguilar-Madriz, Preciliano Martinez, Esq., counsel for defendant Ronald Reeves, John R. Manning, Esq., counsel for defendant Artemio Aguilar, Dan F. Koukol, Esq., counsel for defendant Juan Silva, Carl E. Larson, Esq., counsel for defendant Salvador Silver, J Toney, Esq., counsel for defendant David Martinelli, Michael B. Bigelow, Esq., counsel for defendant Gregorio Zapien-Mendoza, Scott N. Cameron, Esq., counsel for defendant Gabino Cuevas-Hernandez, Hayes H. Gable, III, Esq., counsel for defendant Moses Puledo Aguilar, Clemente M. Jimenez, Esq., counsel for defendant Adam Gutierrez Cruz, Erin J. Radekin, Esq., counsel for defendant Manuel Madriz Sanchez, Kyle R. Knapp, Esq., and counsel for defendant Pedro Aguilar Aguilar, Olaf W. Hedberg, Esq., hereby stipulate the following:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on April 19, 2013.

2. By this stipulation, the defendants now move to continue the status conference until June 21, 2013 and to exclude time between April 19, 2013 and June 21, 2013 under the Local CodeT-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare).

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:

a. Counsel for the defendants need additional time to review the discovery, conduct investigation, and continue negotiations with prosecution in an effort to reach a resolution.
b. Currently the discovery in this case includes 129 pages and two video DVDs.
c. Counsel for the defendants believe the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
d. The Government does not object to the continuance.
e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) within which trial must commence, the time period of April 19, 2013 to June 21, 2013, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request
on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

________________________

PRECILIANO MARTINEZ

Attorney for Defendant

Jose Aguilar-Madriz

________________________

JOHN R. MANNING

Attorney for Defendant

Ronald Reeves

________________________

DAN F. KOUKOL

Attorney for Defendant

Artemio Aguilar

________________________

CARL E. LARSON

Attorney for Defendant

Juan Silva

________________________

J TONEY

Attorney for Defendant

Salvador Silva

________________________

MICHAEL B. BIGELOW

Attorney for Defendant

David Martinelli

________________________

SCOTT N. CAMERON

Attorney for Defendant

Gregorio Zapien-Mendoza

________________________

HAYES H. GABLE

Attorney for Defendant

Gabino Cuevas-Hernandez

________________________

CLEMENTE JIMENEZ

Attorney for Defendant

Moses Puledo Aguilar

________________________

ERIN J. RADEKIN

Attorney for Defendant

Adan Guitierrez Cruz

________________________

KYLE R. KNAPP

Attorney for Defendant

Manuel Madriz Sanchez

________________________

OLAF W. HEDBERG

Attorney for Defendant

Pedro Aguilar Aguilar

Benjamin B. Wagner

United States Attorney

by: ________________________

JUSTIN LEE

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.

________________________

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Aguilar-Madriz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 18, 2013
No. CR-S-11-365-GEB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Aguilar-Madriz

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE AGUILAR-MADRIZ, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 18, 2013

Citations

No. CR-S-11-365-GEB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2013)