Opinion
No. CR-S-11-275 JAM
10-03-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. YAN EBYAM, et al., Defendants.
MATTHEW M. SCOBLE Attorney for Defendant Yan Ebyam WILLIAM J. PORTANOVA Attorney for Defendant Thomas Jopson JOHN R. MANNING Attorney for Defendant David Jopson HAYES H. GABLE Attorney for Defendant Jesus Bruce J TONEY Attorney for Defendant Aimee Sisco DAVID D. FISCHER Attorney for Defendant Pablo Vasquez CARL E. LARSON Attorney for Defendant Dolf Podva DAN F. KOUKOL Attorney for Defendant Donald Fried RONALD J. PETERS Attorney for Defendant Thomas Marrs Benjamin B. Wagner United States Attorney TODD A. PICKLES Assistant U.S. Attorney
JOHN R. MANNING (SBN 220874)
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Attorney for Defendant
DAVID JOPSON
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE
Date: November 15, 2011
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Judge: Honorable John A. Mendez
IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Todd Pickles, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Yan Ebyam, Matthew M. Scoble, Esq., counsel for defendant Thomas Jopson, William J. Portanova, Esq., counsel for defendant David Jopson, John R. Manning, Esq., counsel for defendant Aimee Sisco, J Toney, Esq., counsel for defendant Pablo Vasquez, David D. Fischer, Esq., counsel for defendant Dolf Podva, Carl E. Larson, Esq., counsel for defendant Donald Fried, Dan F. Koukol, Esq., and counsel for defendant Thomas Marrs, Ronald J. Peters, Esq., that the status conference presently set for October 4, 2011 be continued to November 15, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., thus vacating the presently set status conference.
Further, all of the parties, the United States of America and all of the defendants as stated above, hereby agree and stipulate that the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial and that time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act should therefore be excluded under 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local Codes T-2 (unusual or complex case) and T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare) from the date of the parties' stipulation, September 29, 2011, to and including November 15, 2011. All parties stipulate and agree that this case is unusual and complex within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act, as this case involves over 2,000 pages of initial discovery, six search warrants, and nine co-defendants. Additionally, defendant Yan Ebyam is named as a defendant in two indictments pending before this Court, Case Nos. 2:11-CR-276 JAM and 2:11-CR-276 JAM, which make preparation for his defense even more unusual and complicated. All defendants request more time to review the discovery and conduct investigation to prepare each defendant's defense.
IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.
MATTHEW M. SCOBLE
Attorney for Defendant
Yan Ebyam
WILLIAM J. PORTANOVA
Attorney for Defendant
Thomas Jopson
JOHN R. MANNING
Attorney for Defendant
David Jopson
HAYES H. GABLE
Attorney for Defendant
Jesus Bruce
J TONEY
Attorney for Defendant
Aimee Sisco
DAVID D. FISCHER
Attorney for Defendant
Pablo Vasquez
CARL E. LARSON
Attorney for Defendant
Dolf Podva
DAN F. KOUKOL
Attorney for Defendant
Donald Fried
RONALD J. PETERS
Attorney for Defendant
Thomas Marrs
Benjamin B. Wagner
United States Attorney
TODD A. PICKLES
Assistant U.S. Attorney
JOHN R. MANNING (SBN 220874)
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Attorney for Defendant
DAVID JOPSON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
YAN EBYAM, et al., Defendants.
No. CR-S-11-275 JAM
ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERNCE
The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that this case is unusual and complex and that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161. In addition, the Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel to this stipulation 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 the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, September 29, 2011, to and including November 15, 2011, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), and Local Codes T2 (unusual and complex case) and T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is further ordered that the October 4, 2011, status conference shall be continued until November 15, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge