Opinion
No. CR 11-00595 LHK No. CR 11-00596 EJD
11-17-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN GAMINO, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN GAMINO and MARIA HERNANDEZ, Defendants.
MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division THOMAS M. O'CONNELL (NYSBN 1501950) DANIEL R. KALEBA (CABN 223789) Assistant United States Attorneys Attorneys for Plaintiff
MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)
United States Attorney
MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)
Chief, Criminal Division
THOMAS M. O'CONNELL (NYSBN 1501950)
DANIEL R. KALEBA (CABN 223789)
Assistant United States Attorneys
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
On October 26, 2011, the court ordered the above cases related pursuant to Criminal Local Rule 8-1. The first case, charging defendant ADRIAN GAMINO was called on November 16, 2011 before Judge Koh, and continued to December 14, 2011. Gamino and his co-defendant, Maria Hernandez, in case CR11-596 are also set for December 14, 2011, before Judge Koh. The cases were all put over so that so that the discovery process could be commenced and defense counsel would have sufficient time to review the materials and confer with their clients. However, in order to comply with Local Rule 8-1, the cases should be consolidated to the same dates. Moreover, discovery is still not complete. The parties therefore hereby stipulate and agree to continue both matters until December 14, 2011, and to exclusions of time under the Speedy Trial Act, and that said exclusions of time are appropriate based on the defendants' need for effective preparation of counsel.
SO STIPULATED:
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
THOMAS M. O'CONNELL
Assistant United States Attorney
CYNTHIA LIE
Counsel for ADRIAN GAMINO
VICKI YOUNG
Counsel for MARIA HERNANDEZ
Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that both cases CR 11-00595 and CR 11-00596 are continued until December 14, 2011. The Court further finds that based on the defendant's need for effective preparation of counsel, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court therefore concludes that this exclusion of time should be made under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h) (7)(B)(iv). SO ORDERED.
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge