From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Navarro

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 18, 2015
2:12-CR-00310-TLN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)

Opinion

          Edward M. Robinson, LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD M. ROBINSON Torrance, CA. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS

          United States Attorney SAMUEL WONG, Assistant U.S. Attorney.


          AMENDED STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRAIL ACT; FINDINGS & ORDER

          TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

         STIPULATION

         Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, Assistant United States Attorney Samuel Wong and defendant NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS by and through his counsel of record Edward M. Robinson, hereby stipulate as follows:

         1. By previous Order, this matter was set for status on Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

         2. By this stipulation, the parties move to continue the status conference for defendant NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS only to Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. and to exclude the time period between the date of this stipulation, September 18, 2015, and the proposed new status conference hearing date, November 5, 2015, from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

         3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find and Order the following:

         a. Counsel for defendant NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS requires additional time to allow continuity of counsel due to scheduling conflicts as follows:

         1. USA v. Edward Lugo, United States District Court - District of Nevada. Travel on Thursday, September 24, for meetings on Friday, September 25, 2015 to represent cooperating defendant;

         2. People v. Thomas Adams Driscoll, Los Angeles County Superior Court - Alhambra. Case set for court trial on Wednesday, October 7, 2015. Anticipated to last 3-5 days.

         3. USA v. Akemi Bottari. Travel to United States District Court - Eastern District of California. Set for restitution hearing on Wednesday, October 14, 2015.

         4. USA v. Quinn Rudin. Travel to United States District Court - Northern District of California. Set for sentencing hearing on Friday, October 16, 2015.

         5. USA v. Ronald Boyd. Jury trial set in the United States District Court - Central District of California for December 8, 2015. Complex case with voluminous discovery evidence to be presented at a trial anticipated to last 2 weeks.

         6. Counsel for NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS is currently in plea negotiations with the government on two separate matters in the Central District of California. Counsel also has an opening brief due in the case of USA v. Thomas Jeffrey Davis, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to be filed on or before November 18, 2015.

         7. Counsel, most importantly requires additional time prior to a status conference, to further meet and confer with NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS with respect to the allegations in the indictment, discuss his defense, conduct further investigation and research related to the charges, further review discovery for this matter, as well as additional discussions prior to a status conference with NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS to potentially resolved this case or in the alternative, prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial.

         b. Counsel for defendant NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

         c. The government does not object to the continuance.

         d. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

         f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period from the date of this stipulation, September 18, 2015, to and including the date of the proposed new status November 12, 2015, shall be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and B(iv) and Local Code T4 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 interests 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.

          ORDER

         UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the September 24, 2015, status conference hearing for NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS only be continued to November 5, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. Based on the representation of defense counsel and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that 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. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. It is ordered that time beginning from the parties' stipulation, on September 18, 2015, up to and including the November 5, 2015, status conference shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare.

         IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Navarro

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 18, 2015
2:12-CR-00310-TLN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Navarro

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. EDILIO NAVARRO NEMESSIS ROSENDO…

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

Date published: Sep 18, 2015

Citations

2:12-CR-00310-TLN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)