From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Alvarado

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Apr 3, 2013
CR-S-11-134 JAM (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2013)

Opinion

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Michael M. Beckwith, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Estanislao Garcia, Arturo Hernandez, Esq., counsel for defendant Fred Pineda, John R. Manning, Esq., and, counsel for defendant Jose Mario Medrano, Matthew McCrary Scoble, Esq., hereby stipulate the following:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on April 9, 2013.

2. By this stipulation, defendant Fred Pineda now moves to continue this until April 16, 2013 at 9:45 a.m. (for an anticipated change of plea) and to exclude time between April 9, 2013 and April 16, 2013 under the Local Codes T-2 (unusual or complex case) and T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare). Defendants Estanislao Garcia and Jose Medrano now move to continue this matter (for a status conference) to May 7, 2013 at 9:45 a.m. and to exclude time between April 9, 2013 and May 7, 2013, under the Local Codes T-2 (unusual or complex case) and T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare).

ARTURO HERNANDEZ, Attorney for Defendant, Estanislao Garcia.

JOHN R. MANNING, Attorney for Defendant, Fred Pineda.

MATTHEW SCOBLE, Attorney for Defendant, Jose Mario Medrano.

Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney.

MICHAEL M. BECKWITH Assistant U.S. Attorney.

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


a. This is a complex case, including 5, 000 pages of discovery as well as three discs of recorded phone calls (containing hundreds of recorded conversations), and six co-defendants (a total of 13 Indicted). Some defendants are currently incarcerated at the Butte County Jail in Oroville, California; approximately 120 miles roundtrip from downtown Sacramento.

b. Counsel for the defendants need additional time to review the discovery; review investigation reports; discuss USSG calculations with defendants; and, review proposed plea agreements.

c. Counsel for 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. As to Mr. Pineda, 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 9, 2013 to April 16, 2013, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A)) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local Codes T-2 and 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 defendant in a speedy trial.

g. As to Mr. Garcia and Mr. Medrano, 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 9, 2013 to May 7, 2013, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A)) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local Codes T-2 and 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 defendant 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.

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Alvarado

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Apr 3, 2013
CR-S-11-134 JAM (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Alvarado

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN LOPEZ ALVARADO, et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 3, 2013

Citations

CR-S-11-134 JAM (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2013)