Opinion
CR.S-09-00407 KJM
09-16-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, v. MARIA DEL ROCIO ARCEO-RANGEL, et al., DEFENDANTS.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Samuel Wong, by email authorization Samuel Wong ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF Michael D. Long by e mail authorization Michael D. Long Attorney for Defendant Maria Del Rocio Arceo-Rnagel Hayes H. Gable, III by e mail authorization Hayes H. Gable, III Attorney for Defendant Erica Beatriz Martinez-Rangel Michael B. Bigelow by e mail authorization Michael B. Bigelow Attorney for Defendant Martin Garcia-Chavez Dina L. Santos by e mail authorization Dina L. Santos Attorney for Defendant Isidro Gutierrez-Valencia John R. Manning by e mail authorization John R. Manning Attorney for Defendant Cruz Manzo-Gonzalez Jesse S. Ortiz, III by e mail authorization Jesse S. Ortiz, III Attorney for Defendant Alfredo Gallardo-Sosa /s/ Dan F. Koukol by e mail authorization Dan F. Koukol Attorney for Defendant Walter Maruicio Lopez-Perez Preeti Kaur Bajwa by telephone authorization Preeti Kaur Bajwa Attorney for Defendant Gumersindo Perez-Herrera Kirk McAllister by e mail authorization Kirk McAllister Attorney for Defendant Jorge Heriberto Andrade-Torres Clemente M. Jimenez by e mail authorization Clemente M. Jimenez Attorney for Defendant Ricardo Castellanos-Cordova Carl E. Larsen by e mail authorization Carl E. Larson Attorney for defendant Jesus Munoz-Castanon James R. Greiner James R. Greiner Attorney for Defendant Pedro Gutierrez-Valencia
JAMES R. GREINER, ESQ,
CALIFORNIA STATE BARNUMBER 123357
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES R. GREINER
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
PEDRO GUTIERREZ-VALENCIA
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION
The parties to this litigation, the United States of America, represented by Assistant United States Attorney Samuel Wong, and the defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants): 1) Maria Del Rocio Arceo-Rangel, represented by her attorney Mr. Michael D. Long; 2) Erica Beatriz Martinez-Rangel represented by her attorney Mr. Hayes H. Gable, III; 3) Martin Garcia-Chavez represented by his attorney Mr. Michael B. Bigelow; 4) Isidro Gutierrez-Valencia represented by his attorney Ms. Dina L. Santos; 5) Cruz Manzo-Gonzales represented by his attorney Mr. John R. Manning; 6) Alfredo Gallardo-Sosa represented by his attorney Mr. Jesse S. Ortiz, III; 7) Walter Maruicio Lopez-Perez represented by Mr. Dan F. Koukol; 8) Gumersindo Perez-Herrera represented by his attorney Ms. Preeti Kaur Bajwa; 9) Jorge Heriberto Andrade-Torres represented by his attorney Mr. Kirk McAllister; 10) Ricardo Castellanos-Cordova represented by his attorney Mr. Clemente M. Jimenez; 11) Jesus Munoz-Castanon represented by his attorney Mr. Carl E. Larson and 12) Pedro Gutierrez-Valencia represented by his attorney, Mr. James R. Greiner, hereby agree and stipulate that the current briefing schedule set on June 23, 2011, shall be modified as follows:
Defense Speedy Trial Act dismissal motion to be filed by August 11, 2011;
Government's opposition to be filed by September 22, 2011;
Defense reply to government opposition to be filed by September 29, 2011; and
Court hearing on defendants' Speedy Trial Act dismissal motion on October 13, 2011.
TIME EXCLUDED UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
The Court at the status hearing on June 23, 2011, excluded the time period from June 23, 2011, to and including November 10, 2011, from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act after finding that the ends of justice served by granting such continuance outweigh the best interest in the public and all of the defendants in a speedy trial. That finding was supported by the factual bases and findings which were stated on the record, which are hereby adopted in full herein as if stated in full herein, which include, but are not limited to: (1) this case is unusual and so complex within the meaning of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and Local Code T-2, and that it would be unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established in the Speedy Trial Act; and (2) additional time is needed to allow defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence within the meaning of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4. All parties agree to and stipulate to the continued exclusion of the time period from June 23, 2011 up to, and including, November 10, 2011, from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act due to the number of defendants, twelve (12), the volume of discovery (including approximately three large binders of documents, recordings of Spanish language interviews of various defendants, the need for most defense counsel to communicate with his/her client through a Spanish/English language interpreter, numerous photographs, and hundreds of potential trial exhibits), the complex legal issues, the anticipated filing of multiple pre-trial motions by the parties, and the need to conduct further investigation in the case. All the parties agree that the Court should continue to find that the ends of justice served by granting such continuance from June 23, 2011, to, and including, November 10, 2011, outweigh the best interest in the public and all of the defendants in a speedy trial for the reasons stated above. In addition, all the parties agree and stipulate that this modification of the briefing schedule for the defendants' Speedy Trial Act dismissal motion is reasonable and necessary because the last transcript in this case that is necessary for the proper preparation of the motion was received on Saturday, July 30, 2011, and the additional time to August 11, 2011, is needed by the defense to review the transcript, perform legal research, and prepare the motion.
Respectfully submitted:
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Samuel Wong, by email authorization
Samuel Wong
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Michael D. Long by e mail authorization
Michael D. Long
Attorney for Defendant
Maria Del Rocio Arceo-Rnagel
Hayes H. Gable, III by e mail authorization
Hayes H. Gable, III
Attorney for Defendant
Erica Beatriz Martinez-Rangel
Michael B. Bigelow by e mail authorization
Michael B. Bigelow
Attorney for Defendant Martin Garcia-Chavez
Dina L. Santos by e mail authorization
Dina L. Santos
Attorney for Defendant Isidro Gutierrez-Valencia
John R. Manning by e mail authorization
John R. Manning
Attorney for Defendant Cruz Manzo-Gonzalez
Jesse S. Ortiz, III by e mail authorization
Jesse S. Ortiz, III
Attorney for Defendant Alfredo Gallardo-Sosa
/s/ Dan F. Koukol by e mail authorization
Dan F. Koukol
Attorney for Defendant Walter Maruicio Lopez-Perez
Preeti Kaur Bajwa by telephone authorization
Preeti Kaur Bajwa
Attorney for Defendant Gumersindo Perez-Herrera
Kirk McAllister by e mail authorization
Kirk McAllister
Attorney for Defendant
Jorge Heriberto Andrade-Torres
Clemente M. Jimenez by e mail authorization
Clemente M. Jimenez
Attorney for Defendant Ricardo Castellanos-Cordova
Carl E. Larsen by e mail authorization
Carl E. Larson
Attorney for defendant Jesus Munoz-Castanon
James R. Greiner
James R. Greiner
Attorney for Defendant Pedro Gutierrez-Valencia
ORDER
The court, having received, read, and considered the agreement and stipulation of the parties to modify the briefing schedule of the anticipated defense motion to dismiss based on an alleged Speedy Trial Act violation, having reviewed the record and the docket in this case, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the parties' stipulation in its entirety as the court's order.
This court finds that the ends of justice served by granting such continuance and modification to the briefing schedule outweigh the best interest in the public and all of the defendants in a speedy trial. This court made findings on the record at the status hearing on June 23, 2011 (ECF 134), which are hereby adopted by the court in full herein as if stated in full herein. The court further adopts in full herein as if stated in full herein, both the findings and the factual bases and findings supporting the granting of the continuance from June 23, 2011, up to and including November 10, 2011, as set forth in the record on June 23, 2011 (ECF 134). The court continues to find: (1) this case is unusual and so complex within the meaning of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and Local Code T-2, and that it would be unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established in the Speedy Trial Act; and (2) additional time is needed to allow defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence within the meaning of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4. These findings are due to the number of defendants, twelve (12), the volume of discovery (including approximately three large binders of documents, recordings of Spanish language interviews of multiple defendants, numerous photographs, and hundreds of potential trial exhibits), the complex legal issues, the anticipated filing of multiple pre-trial motions by the parties, and the need to conduct further investigation in the case. The court orders the continued exclusion of the time period from June 23, 2011 up to, and including, November 10, 2011, from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to Title, 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local code T-2 (unusual and complex case) and Local Code T-4 (reasonable time necessary for defense attorney preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE