From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lovan

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Apr 1, 2015
1:13-cr-00294 LJO-SKO-1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2015)

Opinion

          HEATHER E. WILLIAMS, Federal Defender, ANDRAS FARKAS, Assistant Federal Defender Designated Counsel for Service, Fresno, CA, Attorneys for Defendant, IANE LOVAN.

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, KEVIN P. ROONEY, Assistant United States Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.

          HARRY M. DRANDELL, LAW OFFICES OF HARRY M. DRANDELL, Attorney for Defendant, VONG SOUTHY.

          DANIEL L. HARRALSON, DANIEL L. HARRALSON LAW CORP., Attorney for Defendant, SOMPHANE MALATHONG.

          PETER MICHAEL JONES, WANGER, JONES, HELSLEY, P.C., Attorney for Defendant, KHAMPHOU KHOUTHONG.

          CAROL ANN MOSES, Attorney for Defendant, SUPHAN SAISEE.


          STIPULATION TO VACATE TRIAL AND SET STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER

          LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties through their respective counsel, KEVIN P. ROONEY, Assistant U.S. Attorney, counsel for plaintiff, ANDRAS FARKAS, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for defendant, IANE LOVAN, HARRY M. DRANDELL, counsel for VONG SOUTHY, DANIEL L. HARRALSON, counsel for SOMPHANE MALATHONG, PETER M. JONES, counsel for KHAMPHOU KHOUTHONG and CAROL A. MOSES, Counsel for SUPHAN SAISEE, that the jury trial in this matter presently set for April 28, 2015 and the jury trial confirmation hearing set for April 14, 2015 be vacated and that a status conference be set on May 4, 2015, at 8:30 a.m.

         The reason for this request is that defense counsel are appealing the District Court's denial of its motion to dismiss the indictment and request for an injunction. A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit could affect whether the government may be allowed to proceed with the prosecution of the defendants in this matter. The requested continuance will conserve time and resources for both parties and the court.

         The parties agree that the delay resulting from the continuance shall be excluded in the interests of justice, including but not limited to, the need for the period of time set forth herein for effective defense preparation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii), (iv).

          ORDER

         THIS ORDER IS CONDITIONAL. For the reasons set forth above, the request for vacating trial and for setting a status conference hearing is granted for good cause. The Court finds that the interest of justice outweighs the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and time is excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 (h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii), (iv).

         This is CONDITIONED upon counsels' agreement that each is committed to resetting the trial to occur within 4 months of the ruling of the Ninth Circuit should the position of defense be rejected. If any counsel does NOT agree to this condition, they are required to advise the Court within 4 court days of this order.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Lovan

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Apr 1, 2015
1:13-cr-00294 LJO-SKO-1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Lovan

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. IANE LOVAN, ET AL., Defendant.

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

Date published: Apr 1, 2015

Citations

1:13-cr-00294 LJO-SKO-1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2015)