Opinion
2:21-mj-1027-DJA
04-14-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LUIGI J. MONTES, ALEXANDER HOYOS RIVERA, and PETER ALEXANDER STINCER, Defendants.
CHRISTOPHER CHIOU, JIM W. FANG Attorney Counsel for the United States. JESS MARCHESE, ESQ. Counsel for Defendant Montes. IVETTE A. MANINGO, ESQ. Counsel for Defendant Rivera. JACQUELINE M. TIRINNANZI, ESQ. Counsel for Defendant Stincer.
CHRISTOPHER CHIOU, JIM W. FANG Attorney Counsel for the United States.
JESS MARCHESE, ESQ. Counsel for Defendant Montes.
IVETTE A. MANINGO, ESQ. Counsel for Defendant Rivera.
JACQUELINE M. TIRINNANZI, ESQ. Counsel for Defendant Stincer.
ORDER TO CONTINUE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING (SECOND REQUEST)
HONORABLE DANIEL J. ALBREGTS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between Christopher Chiou, Acting United States Attorney, through Jim W. Fang, Assistant United States Attorney, Charles Medlin, Esq. and Jess Marchese, Esq., counsel for Defendant Luigi J. Montes, Ivette A. Maningo, Esq., counsel for Defendant Alexander Hoyos Rivera, and Jacqueline M. Tirinnanzi, Esq., counsel for Defendant Peter Alexander Stincer, that the preliminary hearing in the abovecaptioned matter, previously scheduled for April 25, 2022, at 4:00 p.m., be vacated and continued until a time convenient to the Court, but no earlier than 90 days from the current setting.
1. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 5.1(d) provides that “[w]ith the defendant's consent and upon a showing of good cause-taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases-a magistrate judge may extend the time limits [for preliminary hearings] one or more times.” Here, the parties desire to explore the potential to resolve this matter before defendants are formally charged by a criminal indictment.
2. In that regard, the government has provided defense counsels with limited Rule 16 discovery in order to facilitate pre-indictment resolution. The discovery was voluminous and was only recently produced under a protective order granted by this Court. Defense counsels will need additional time to review the discovery and discuss the case with their clients prior to a preliminary hearing, indictment, or to reach a pre-indictment resolution.
3. This continuance is not sought for the purposes of delay, but to allow defense counsels an opportunity to examine the merits of this case before a potential resolution can be reached between the parties.
4. Defendants are not in custody and agree to the continuance.
5. Denial of this request could result in a miscarriage of justice, and the ends of justice served by granting this request outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
6. The additional time requested by this stipulation is excludable in computing the time within which indictment must be filed pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), and considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(i) and (iv).
FINDINGS AND ORDER
Based on the pending Stipulation between the defense and the government, and goo cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby finds that:
1. The parties desire to continue the preliminary hearing to facilitate preindictment resolution, and the government has provided defense counsels with limited Rule 16 discovery for that purpose. Defense counsels will need additional time to review the discovery and discuss the case with their clients prior to a preliminary hearing or indictment. The Court finds good cause to continue the hearing to allow the parties to reach a pre-indictment resolution.
2. Both counsels for defendants and counsel for the government agree to the continuance.
3. Defendants are not in custody and agree to the continuance.
4. The continuance is not sought for the purposes of delay, but to allow defense counsel an opportunity to examine the merits of this case before a potential resolution can be reached between the parties.
5. Denial of this request could result in a miscarriage of justice, and the ends of justice served by granting this request outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
6. The additional time requested by this stipulation is excludable in computing the time within which indictment must be filed pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), and considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(i) and (iv).
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the preliminary hearing in the above-captioned matter currently scheduled for April 25, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. be vacated and continued to July 25, 2022, at 4:00 p.m., Courtroom 3A.