From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Alcantar-Penaloza

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jul 26, 2013
1:10-CR-00287 AWI/BAM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 26, 2013)

Opinion

          ERIC GREEN #80115, Attorney at Law, Fresno, California, Attorney for Defendant, JOSE REFUGIO ALCANTAR-PENALOZA.

          ROBERT LYONS, Attorney for Defendant, DAVID GODINEZ.

          PRECILIANO MARTINEZ, Attorney for Defendant, RAFAEL MENDEZ ESPARZA.

          ARTURO HERNANDEZ, Attorney for Defendant, ERIC CERVANTES AGUILAR.

          KATHLEEN SERVATIUS, Assistant United States Attorney.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING

          ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.

         The parties by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to the following: The parties have jointly agreed that the current Hearing of Monday, July 29, 2013, at the hour of 1:30 p.m., be continued to Monday, September 23, 2013, at the hour of 1:30 p.m. The reason for this continuance is that Mr. Green is currently in trial in Department 62 of the Fresno County Superior Court on a special circumstances murder case wherein which the People of the State of California are seeking the death penalty. His trial is anticipated to conclude sometime on or near September 19, 2013. Defense counsel has contacted all other counsel in this case and obtained consent to continue the matter accordingly.

         For the factual reasons above, the parties agree that the time between July 29, 2013 and September 23, 2013 shall be excludable from the Speedy Trial Act requirements of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3161 (h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

         The parties agree that the time is excludable in that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance of the status conference to September 23, 2013 outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The parties agree that a continuance of the hearing to September 23, 2013 is necessary to ensure effective case preparation for resolution and denial of such a continuance would unreasonably deny defendant effective case preparation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Alcantar-Penaloza

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jul 26, 2013
1:10-CR-00287 AWI/BAM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 26, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Alcantar-Penaloza

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE REFUGIO ALCANTAR-PENALOZA, et…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 26, 2013

Citations

1:10-CR-00287 AWI/BAM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 26, 2013)