From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Chandler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 27, 2012
2:11-CR-511 EJG (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012)

Opinion

2:11-CR-511 EJG

01-27-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILEY C. CHANDLER, ANDREW B. KATAKIS, DONALD M. PARKER ANTHONY B. JOAQUIM and W. THEODORE LONGLEY, Defendants.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney RUSSELL L. CARLBERG Assistant U.S. Attorney ANNA TRYON PLETCHER TAI S. MILDER Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division


BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

RUSSELL L. CARLBERG

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ANNA TRYON PLETCHER

TAI S. MILDER

Trial Attorneys

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE


Judge: Hon. Edward J. Garcia

IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Russell L. Carlberg, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Wiley C. Chandler, Jeffrey L. Bornstein, Esq., counsel for defendant Andrew B. Katakis, Paul J. Pfingst, Esq., counsel for defendant Donald M. Parker, Scott L. Tedmon, Esq., counsel for defendant Anthony B. Joachim, Thomas A. Johnson, Esq., and counsel for defendant W. Theodore Longley, Matthew Bockman, Esq., that the status conference presently set for January 17, 2012, be continued to January 27, 2012 at 9:15 a.m., thus vacating the presently set status conference. The reason for the continuance is that previous status conference was set before this case was reassigned to this Court. See Related Case Order, Docket No. 37. Additionally, defense counsel require additional time to review discovery.

It is further stipulated that the time between January 17, 2012 and January 27, 2012 can appropriately be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii)(Local Code T-2) and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv)(Local T-4). This is based on the complexity of the case, including thousands of pages of discovery, the fact there are five codefendants, and the complex nature of the legal and factual issues in the case based on the antitrust and fraud allegations in the Indictment against all the defendants.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

________________________

JEFFREY L. BORNSTEIN*

Attorney for WILEY C. CHANDLER

__________________

PAUL J. PFINGST*

Attorney for ANDREW B. KATAKIS

_________________

SCOTT L. TEDMON*

Attorney for DONALD M. PARKER

__________________

THOMAS A. JOHNSON*

Attorney for ANTHONY B. JOACHIM

________________

MATTHEW BOCKMAN*

Attorney for W. THEODORE LONGLEY

___________________

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: ____________

RUSSELL L. CARLBERG

Assistant U.S. Attorney

_________________

ANNA T. PLETCHER

TAI S. MILDER

Trial Attorneys

Antitrust Division

United States Department of Justice
*Signed with permission.

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that the January 17, 2012 status conference be continued to January 27, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. I find that the ends of justice warrant an exclusion of time and that the defendant's need for continuity of counsel and reasonable time for effective preparation exceeds the public interest in a trial within 70 days. THEREFORE IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that time be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii)(Local Code T-2) and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv)(Local Code T-4) from the date of this order to January 27, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________

HON. EDWARD J. GARCIA

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Chandler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 27, 2012
2:11-CR-511 EJG (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Chandler

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILEY C. CHANDLER, ANDREW B…

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

Date published: Jan 27, 2012

Citations

2:11-CR-511 EJG (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012)