From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Madrigal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 6, 2012
Case No. Cr.S 10-162 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. Cr.S 10-162 JAM

01-06-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FERNANDO MADRIGAL, et. al., Defendant

Heiko Coppola, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff Michael B. Bigelow Attorney for Defendant Fernando Madrigal Steve Teich Attorney for Defendant Rafael Emilio Gaonzalez Jurabe John Virga Attorney for Defendant CerArturo Zepeda Hayes Gable Attorney for Defendant Alfredo Gallardo-Sosa Ron Peters Attorney for Defendant Mario Nunez Sr. Carl Larson Attorney for Defendant Justin Haynes Danny Brace Attorney for Defendant Hiribero Andrad-Torres James Greiner Attorney for Defendant Alehandro Cisneros Romero Scott Cameron Attorney for Defendant Juan Lopez Doug Beevers Attorney for Defendant Jairo Zapien Robert Forkner Attorney for Defendant Ignacio Hernandez


MICHAEL B. BIGELOW

Attorney at Law

Attorney for Defendant

Fernando Madrigal

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CONTINUING STATUS AND EXCLUDING TIME


ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Heiko coppola, Counsel for Plaintiff, and undersigned counsel for all defendants, that the status conference scheduled for January 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM, be vacated and the matter be continued to this Court's criminal calendar on March 6, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. for further status.

This continuance is requested by the defense in order to permit counsel time to prepare for the defense of this case and to continue negotiations with the prosecution in an effort to reach resolution.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that time for trial under the

Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et. seq. be tolled pursuant

to § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv), Local code T-4 (time to prepare),

and that the ends of justice served in granting the continuance and allowing the defendants further time to prepare outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The Court is advised that all counsel have conferred about this request, that they have agreed to the March 6, 2012, date, and that all counsel have authorized Mr. Bigelow to sign this stipulation on their behalf.

IT IS SO STIPULATED

________________________

Heiko Coppola, Esq.,

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Plaintiff

___________________

Michael B. Bigelow

Attorney for Defendant

Fernando Madrigal

____________

Steve Teich

Attorney for Defendant

Rafael Emilio Gaonzalez Jurabe

____________

John Virga

Attorney for Defendant

CerArturo Zepeda

____________

Hayes Gable

Attorney for Defendant

Alfredo Gallardo-Sosa

____________

Ron Peters

Attorney for Defendant

Mario Nunez Sr.

____________

Carl Larson

Attorney for Defendant

Justin Haynes

____________

Danny Brace

Attorney for Defendant

Hiribero Andrad-Torres

____________

James Greiner

Attorney for Defendant

Alehandro Cisneros Romero

____________

Scott Cameron

Attorney for Defendant

Juan Lopez

____________

Doug Beevers

Attorney for Defendant

Jairo Zapien

____________

Robert Forkner

Attorney for Defendant

Ignacio Hernandez

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED: that pursuant to stipulation the above referenced matter shall be continued until March 6, 2012 at 9:30 a.m., and time excluded for the reasons set forth above.

________________________

HON. JOHN A MENDEZ .

UNITED SATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Madrigal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 6, 2012
Case No. Cr.S 10-162 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Madrigal

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FERNANDO MADRIGAL, et. al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 6, 2012

Citations

Case No. Cr.S 10-162 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012)