From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Figueroa-Soto

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 22, 2022
1:17-CR-00264-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2022)

Opinion

1:17-CR-00264-JLT-SKO

06-22-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. IVAN FIGUEROA-SOTO, Defendant.

PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney JEFFREY A. SPIVAK Assistant United States Attorney Serita Rios Counsel for Defendant IVAN FIGUEROA-SOTO


Dated: June 29, 2022

PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney

JEFFREY A. SPIVAK Assistant United States Attorney

Serita Rios Counsel for Defendant IVAN FIGUEROA-SOTO

JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER

THE HONORABLE SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is set for status conference June 29, 2022. As set forth below, the parties now move, by stipulation, to continue the status conference to November 16, 2022, and to exclude the time period between June 29, 2022 and November 16, 2022 under the Speedy Trial Act.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 29, 2022.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until

November 16, 2022, and to exclude time between June 29, 2022, and November 16, 2022, under Local Code T4.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) On April 23, 2021, defendant was arrested in San Bernardino, California on the arrest warrant in this case. He made his initial appearance in this district on May 19, 2021.
b) The parties anticipate this case will resolve in the near future. Counsel for defendant and government recently met extensively in May 2022 to discuss some legal and factual issues in the case, and defense counsel needs additional time to review and discuss the case with defendant.
c) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case is voluminous and includes many thousands of hours of wiretap calls, hundreds of hours of video, hundreds of investigative reports, hundreds of pictures, and extensive other evidence. This case was a multi-agency wiretap investigation that lasted nearly a year. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
d) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his/her client, review the charges, conduct investigation and research, review discovery and discuss potential resolution of the case. The COVID-19 Pandemic continues to make certain tasks, such as client meetings, and certain aspects of case investigation more difficult and more time consuming. Counsel had experienced technological challenges accessing the audio/video evidence and worked with the discovery vendor in the case to assist with accessing that discovery.
e) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
f) The government does not object to the continuance.
g) Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
h) 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 of June 29, 2022 to November 16, 2022, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [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 interest 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

The parties shall be prepared to select a mutually agreeable trial date at the next status conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Figueroa-Soto

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 22, 2022
1:17-CR-00264-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Figueroa-Soto

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. IVAN FIGUEROA-SOTO, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 22, 2022

Citations

1:17-CR-00264-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2022)