From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Esquivel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2013
CASE NO. 1:11-cr-00188 LJO (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)

Opinion

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, KIMBERLY A. SANCHEZ, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Fresno, California.

          STEVEN B. PLESSER, Attorney for Gonzalo Esquivel, KYLE KNAPP, Attorney for Kenneth Hernandez, DAVID D. FISCHER, Attorney for Gustavo Moreno, ROBERT CASSIO, Attorney for David Torres.,


          STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTIONS AND RESPONSES THERETO

          LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney and Kimberly A. Sanchez, Assistant U.S. Attorney and Steven B. Plesser, attorney for defendant Esquivel, Kyle Knapp, attorney for defendant Hernandez, Kelly Babineau, attorney for defendant Jiminez, David Fischer, attorney for defendant Moreno, and Robert Cassio, attorney for defendant Torres, to extend the time to file motions from May 1, 2013 to May 16, 2013; responses from May 22 to June 4, 2013; and replies from May 29, 2013 to June 11, 2013. The hearing on the motions is set for June 10, 2013, and parties request the date be continued to June 18, 2013 and be heard with the motions in the related case of United States v. Juan Herrera, 1:11-CR-00186 LJO.

         Counsel have conferred, and believe that the additional time will assist the parties in ascertaining whether an agreement to resolve the matter may be reached. Counsel agree that the time between June 10, 2013 and June 18, 2013 will be excluded from the speedy trial calculation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) in that the defendants' and the public's interest in a speedy trial are outweighed by the interests of justice in permitting counsel adequate time to review the voluminous discovery in order to determine whether they would like to request the Court to set a motion schedule or some additional proceeding and for continuity of counsel such that all defendants' counsel may appear. Moreover, the parties have previously agreed and continue to agree that due to the nature of the prosecution and the amount of discovery resulting from the investigation involving multiple wiretaps, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B), the case is complex, and it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by 18 U.S.C. §3161.

Respectfully submitted,

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Esquivel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2013
CASE NO. 1:11-cr-00188 LJO (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Esquivel

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GONZALO ESQUIVEL, AKA…

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

Date published: May 1, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 1:11-cr-00188 LJO (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)