Opinion
Case No.: 2:12-cr-0031-MCE
07-17-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANDREY KIM, et al., Defendants.
THOMAS A. JOHNSON, #119203 Attorney for Defendant Andrey Kim
THOMAS A. JOHNSON, #119203
Attorney for Defendant Andrey Kim
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
CONTINUANCE OF STATUS
CONFERENCE
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and Defendant, Andrey Kim, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on July 19, 2012.
2. By this stipulation, Defendant now moves to continue the status conference until September 13, 2012 and to exclude time between July 19, 2012 and September 13, 2012 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately 1,700 pages of discovery. This discovery
has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.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.
b. Counsel for defendant desires additional time in order to continue review of the discovery and to conduct research related to the charges. Counsel also notes that the defendant is also charged in United States v. Chartaev, Cr. No. S-11-514 GEB, a much larger case involving 11 defendants and approximately 4,500 pages of discovery. Any resolution of the current case must necessarily depend on a thorough understanding of that case. Consequently, the defense requires additional time to review the discovery and consider its options in that case.
c. 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.
d. The government does not object to the continuance.
e. 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.
f. 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 July 19, 2012 to September 13, 2012, 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.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
By: ____________________________
THOMAS A. JOHNSON
Attorney for Defendant
ANDREY KIM
BENJAMIN WAGNER
United States Attorney
By: Thomas A. Johnson for
R. STEVEN LAPHAM
Assistant U.S. Attorney
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE