From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lopez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 2, 2013
No. CR 10 - 0236 EJD (N.D. Cal. May. 2, 2013)

Opinion

No. CR 10 - 0236 EJD

05-02-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN ANGEL LOPEZ, Defendant.

VICKI H. YOUNG, ESQ. Attorney for Adrian Angel Lopez MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney TIMOTHY J. LUCEY Assistant United States Attorney


STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE

OF STATUS DATE; [PROPOSED]

ORDER

It is hereby stipulated between the defendant Adrian Angel Lopez, by and through his attorney of record Vicki H. Young, and the government, through Assistant United States Attorney Timothy J. Lucey that the status date of May 6, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. be continued to June 3, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.

The reasons for this continuance is that discovery issues have arisen that need to be resolved before the settlement conference, previously ordered by the Court, can feasibly occur. Specifically, defense counsel has submitted additional discovery requests to the government. The Government is in the process of evaluating these requests, which include consulting with counsel for investigative agencies, in order to determine whether any further production is warranted and the timing of any such production to the defense.

Under Title 18 U.S. C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), the continuance is necessary to allow the attorneys for the government and the defense the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into the account the exercise of due diligence.

In addition, the time for this status conference was advanced on May 6, 2013, from 1:30 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., such that the attendance of counsel for the United States is uncertain and may require another attorney for the Government to appear in his stead.

Accordingly, given the time needed by counsel to work through these discovery issues, and thereafter prepare and participate in the contemplated settlement conference, and the need for continuity of counsel, a reasonable continuance is necessary from May 6, 2013, until June 3, 2013, is necessary and appropriate, and time should therefore be excluded from May 6, 2013, up and including June 3, 2013.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

______________

VICKI H. YOUNG, ESQ.

Attorney for Adrian Angel Lopez

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

______________

TIMOTHY J. LUCEY

Assistant United States Attorney

PROPOSED ORDER

GOOD CAUSE BEING SHOWN, the status date appearance set for May 6, 2013, is continued to June 3, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. This Court finds that the period from May 6, 2013, through and including June 3, 2013, is excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7).

The basis for such exclusion is that additional time is needed for parties to complete certain discovery issues, including for the Government to evaluate recent discovery requests made by the defense as well as time for the defense to evaluate the Government's response to such requests, including additional production in response to such requests, as well as the need for continuity of counsel.

Therefore the ends of justice served by such a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a Speedy Trial within the meaning of Title 18 U.S.C §3161(h)(7).

As required by 18 U.S.C §3161 (h)(7), this Court finds that the reason that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial are the denial of the continuance would unreasonably deny both the attorney for the government and the attorney for the defendant reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7).

______________

HONORABLE EDWARD J. DAVILA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Lopez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 2, 2013
No. CR 10 - 0236 EJD (N.D. Cal. May. 2, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Lopez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN ANGEL LOPEZ, Defendant.

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

Date published: May 2, 2013

Citations

No. CR 10 - 0236 EJD (N.D. Cal. May. 2, 2013)