Opinion
No. CR-S-11-134 JAM
01-25-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN LOPEZ ALVARADO, et al., Defendants.
ARTURO HERNANDEZ Attorney for Defendant Estanislao Garcia JOHN R. MANNING Attorney for Defendant Fred Pineda MATTHEW MCCRARY SCOBLE Attorney for Defendant Jose Mario Medrano CHRISTOPHER R. COSCA Attorney for Defendant Cesar Rafael Torres Benjamin B. Wagner United States Attorney MICHAEL M. BECKWITH 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
FRED PINEDA
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING
EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS
UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
Date: March 5, 2013
Judge: Honorable John A. Mendez
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., counsel for defendant Cesar Rafael Torres, Christopher R. Cosca, 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 January 29, 2013.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until March 5, 2013 and to exclude time between January 29, 2013 and March 5, 2013 under the Local Codes T-2 (unusual or complex case) and T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare).
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. 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 January 29, 2013 to March 5, 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.
__________________
ARTURO HERNANDEZ
Attorney for Defendant
Estanislao Garcia
_______________
JOHN R. MANNING
Attorney for Defendant
Fred Pineda
___________________
MATTHEW MCCRARY SCOBLE
Attorney for Defendant
Jose Mario Medrano
________________
CHRISTOPHER R. COSCA
Attorney for Defendant
Cesar Rafael Torres
Benjamin B. Wagner
United States Attorney
by:_______________
MICHAEL M. BECKWITH
Assistant U.S. Attorney
ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED this 25TH day of January, 2013.
_____________________
Hon. John A. Mendez
United States District Judge