Opinion
Case No. 2:11-CR-00467-JAM
02-01-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ZHORA DARMOYAN, MARAT GALOYAN, MARTIN ATOYAN and, KRISTINE ATOYAN, Defendants.
DWIGHT SAMUAL Attorney for ZHORA DARMOYAN CHRIS HADYN-MYER Attorney for MARAT GALOYAN J. TONEY Attorney for MARTIN ATOYAN BARTH TOZER & DALY LLP KRESTA NORA DALY Attorneys for KRISTINE ATOYAN LEE BICKLEY Assistant United States Attorney
Kresta Nora Daly, SBN 199689 Thomas W. Barth, SBN 154075
BARTH TOZER & DALY LLP
431 "I" Street, Suite 201
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 440-8600
Facsimile: (916) 440-9610
Email: kdaly@btdlaw. net
Attorneys for Defendant
KRISTINE ATOYAN
AMENDED STIPULATION AND
ORDER
Judge: Honorable John A. Mendez
It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through Lee Bickley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and defendants Zhora Darmoyan, through his counsel, Dwight Samual, Marat Galoyan, through his counsel Chris Hadyn-Myer, Martin Atoyan, through his counsel J. Toney, and Kristine Atoyan, through her counsel, Kresta Nora Daly as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on January 29, 2013.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until March 12, 2013 at 9:45 a.m. and to exclude time between January 29, 2012 and March 12, 2013 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
(a) Defense counsel is in the process of reviewing the discovery. Defense counsel and each of them have not completed their review and are therefore unprepared to meet and confer with the government to resolve discovery issues.
(b) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to consult with each of their clients, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with each of their clients, to prepare pretrial motions and otherwise prepare for trial.
(c) Counsel for defendants believe failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny each of them 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 continuing the case as requested outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
(f) For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code Section 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of January 29, 2013 to March 12, 2013, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to Title 18, United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendants' request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
(g) This case involves multiple witnesses and multiple defendants and concerns allegations of mortgage fraud in separate but related cases including United States v. Kuzmenko, et al 2:11-CR-00210.
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.
The parties request that speedy trial time be excluded from January 29, 2013 through the date of the status conference set for March 12, 2013 pursuant to Title 18, United States Code Section 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) [reasonable time to prepare] (Local Code T4).
Respectfully submitted,
By __
DWIGHT SAMUAL
Attorney for ZHORA DARMOYAN
By __
CHRIS HADYN-MYER
Attorney for MARAT GALOYAN
By __
J. TONEY
Attorney for MARTIN ATOYAN
BARTH TOZER & DALY LLP
By __
KRESTA NORA DALY
Attorneys for KRISTINE ATOYAN
By __
LEE BICKLEY
Assistant United States Attorney
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________
HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE