From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Pong Lin Lui

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Mar 28, 2013
CASE NO. CR-05-00723 RMW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. CR-05-00723 RMW

03-28-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PONG LIN LUI, Defendant.

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division ADAM L. WRIGHT (MABN 661283) Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the United States


MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)
United States Attorney
MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)
Chief, Criminal Division
ADAM L. WRIGHT (MABN 661283)
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for the United States

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER

EXTENDING TIME FOR THE GOVERNMENT

TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

The parties hereby file this stipulation and proposed order extending the deadline for the United States to respond to Defendant Pong Lin Liu's amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 578) ("Defendant's Motion"). The parties respectfully request that the period for the United States to respond to the Defendant's Motion be extended by 45 days, which would make the deadline May 21, 2013.

On February 20, 2013, the Court ordered that the government file an answer to the Defendant's Motion within 45 days. (Doc. No. 580.) The Defendant's Motion alleges ineffective assistance of counsel involving plea negotiations between the United States and Pong Lin Liu ("Pong"). These negotiations occurred in the context of a several-year investigation that resulted in the indictment of 10 defendants in a multi-drug conspiracy. (Def's. Motion ¶¶ 29-32.) After rejecting a plea offer, Pong went to trial and was convicted on nine of the ten counts in the indictment. (Id. ¶7.) On September 21, 2009, Pong was sentenced to 324 months of imprisonment. (Id. ¶9.)

In addition to a declaration from Liu, the Defendant's Motion included a declaration from the original attorney, Kurt K. Robinson (Doc. No. 578-1), as well as a proffered expert witness, Thomas J. Nolan (Doc No. 578-3). The United States needs additional time to review the extensive record in this case, including the record from discovery and trial; to consider whether and how to conduct discovery, including, if necessary, seeking a waiver of the attorney client privilege regarding Robinson's communications with Pong; and to explore whether it is possible to reach a negotiated resolution.

The parties believe that good cause exists for this extension, which is not submitted for the purpose of delay. The parties agree and respectfully request that the Court extend, by 45 days, the deadline for the United States to respond to the Defendant's amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. If this order is granted, the new deadline for the government's answer would be May 21, 2013. SO STIPULATED:

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

_______________

ADAM L. WRIGHT

Assistant United States Attorney

_______________

PAUL L. ALAGA

Attorney for Pong Lin Liu

[] ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an extension of time is warranted for the United States to respond to Defendant Pong Lin Liu's amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 578). The answer of the government will be due on May 21, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Pong Lin Lui

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Mar 28, 2013
CASE NO. CR-05-00723 RMW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Pong Lin Lui

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PONG LIN LUI, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Mar 28, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. CR-05-00723 RMW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013)