From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Laredo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 24, 2013
No. 2:10-CR-00299 WBS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:10-CR-00299 WBS

01-24-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BERNARDO LAREDO, et al., Defendants.

MICHAEL E. HANSEN Attorney for Defendant BERNARDO LAREDO Michael E. Hansen for DINA SANTOS Attorney for Defendant MARA STILES Michael E. Hansen for TONI CARBONE Attorney for Defendant ANGELA BOSCHKE Michael E. Hansen for PRECILIANO MARTINEZ Attorney for Defendant JOSE AGUILAR-MADRIZ BENJAMIN B. WAGNER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Michael E. Hansen for DANIEL McCONKIE Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff


Michael E. Hansen
Attorney at Law, SBN 191737
711 Ninth Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.438.7711 FAX 916.864.1359
Attorney for Defendant
BERNARDO LAREDO

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS

CONFERENCE, AND TO EXCLUDE

TIME PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY

TRIAL ACT

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, Daniel McConkie, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for plaintiff; Michael Hansen, attorney for defendant Bernardo Laredo; Dina Santos, attorney for defendant Mara Stiles; Toni Carbone, attorney for defendant Angela Boschke; and Preciliano Martinez, attorney for defendant Jose Aguilar-Madriz, that the previously-scheduled status conference date of January 28, 2013, be vacated and the matter set for status conference on March 4, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. It is expected the defendants will either change their pleas or set trial dates.

This continuance is requested to allow counsel additional time to consult with their clients. All defendants are working diligently to resolve their cases short of trial.

The Government concurs with this request.

Further, the parties agree and stipulate the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial and that time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act should therefore be excluded under 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare), from the date of the parties' stipulation, January 24, 2013, to and including March 4, 2013.

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court adopt this proposed stipulation.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________

MICHAEL E. HANSEN

Attorney for Defendant

BERNARDO LAREDO

Michael E. Hansen for

DINA SANTOS

Attorney for Defendant

MARA STILES

Michael E. Hansen for

TONI CARBONE

Attorney for Defendant

ANGELA BOSCHKE

Michael E. Hansen for

PRECILIANO MARTINEZ

Attorney for Defendant

JOSE AGUILAR-MADRIZ

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Michael E. Hansen for

DANIEL McCONKIE

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. section 3161. In addition, the Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel to this stipulation reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, January 24, 2013, to and including March 4, 2013, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), and Local Code T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is further ordered that the January 28, 2013, status conference shall be continued until March 4, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Laredo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 24, 2013
No. 2:10-CR-00299 WBS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Laredo

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BERNARDO LAREDO, et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 24, 2013

Citations

No. 2:10-CR-00299 WBS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2013)