From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Van

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 12, 2013
CASE NO. 2:13-cr-00078 MCE (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:13-cr-00078 MCE

04-12-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RATHANAK VAN, aka "LOONEY" SNANGEHK PEOU, LITTANOVONE KEOPADUPSY, and HO LY, Defendants.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney PAUL A. HEMESATH Assistant United States Attorney Michael Petrik Counsel for Defendant RATHANAK VAN Mark Reichel Counsel for Defendant LITTANOVONE KEOPADUPSY Christopher Cosca Counsel for Defendant SNANGEHK PEOU Michael Long Counsel for Defendant HO LY


BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
PAUL A. HEMESATH
Assistant United States Attorney

STIPULATION AND ORDER


Date: April 11, 2013

Judge: Hon. Morrison E. England

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between: Assistant United States Attorney Paul Hemesath, counsel for Plaintiff; Michael Petrik, counsel for defendant RATHANAK VAN, Christopher Cosca, counsel for defendant SNANGEHK PEOU; Mark Reichel, counsel for LITTANOVONE KEOPADUPSY; and Michael Long, counsel for HO LY, that the above status conference be rescheduled from this Court's April 11, 2013, calendar, and that the matter be re-calendared for May 23, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. This request is made jointly by the government and defense in order to permit time for continued preparation, including investigation which is currently in progress, and plea negotiations. Defense counsel is reviewing substantial discovery materials, including hours of video and audio recordings concerning the alleged conduct. The parties agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that time be excluded between April 11, 2013, and May 23, 2013, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), Local Code T-4.

______________________

Paul Hemesath

Assistant United States Attorney

Counsel for Plaintiff

______________________

Michael Petrik

Counsel for Defendant

RATHANAK VAN

______________________

Mark Reichel

Counsel for Defendant

LITTANOVONE KEOPADUPSY

______________________

Christopher Cosca

Counsel for Defendant

SNANGEHK PEOU

______________________

Michael Long

Counsel for Defendant

HO LY

ORDER

Finding that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Van

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 12, 2013
CASE NO. 2:13-cr-00078 MCE (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Van

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RATHANAK VAN, aka "LOONEY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 12, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 2:13-cr-00078 MCE (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2013)