Opinion
Case No. 2:10-CR-305 LKK
01-23-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SIAVASH POURSARTIP, et. al. Defendants.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY RUSSELL L. CARLBERG Assistant U. S. Attorney (per email authorization) CHRISTOPHER H. WING Attorney for Defendant SARA SHIRAZI (per email authorization) RICHARD PACHTER Attorney for Defendant SIAVASH POURSARTIP
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD PACHTER
Richard Pachter (SBN 120069)
Attorney for Defendant SIAVASH POURSARTIP
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE
DATE: N/A
TIME: N/A
Courtroom: Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the United States of America, on the one hand, and defendants, Siavash Poursartip, and Sara Shirazi, on the other hand, through their respective attorneys, that the status conference in the above-entitled matter set for Tuesday January 24, 2012, shall be continued to Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 9:15 a.m.
The parties further stipulate and agree that the time period from the date of this stipulation up to and including the new status conference date of March 13, 2012, shall be excluded from computation of the time for commencement of trial under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv) and Local Codes T2 (unusual or complex case) and T4 (preparation by prosecution and defense counsel).
The parties note that the indictment contains ten counts and a forfeiture allegation, that the acts alleged in the indictment span from 2004 to 2009, and that the discovery in this matter is quite voluminous. There remains further investigation and research that the defendants have been pursuing and the defendants and their counsel have been working at diligently since before the indictment in this matter. A substantial amount of electronic evidence has been analyzed by a forensic expert and recently been made available to defense counsel for review. Additional electronic evidence has not yet been able to be accessed. Based upon these facts, the parties stipulate and agree that it unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in § 3161, the case is unusual or complex within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act, and the requested continuance is necessary to serve the ends of justice and to provide both the prosecution and defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv). Specifically, each defendant agrees that his or her counsel needs additional time to review the discovery that has been provided, to effectively evaluate the case and to prepare for trial. See id Additionally, the parties hereby stipulate that this case is unusual and complex such that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for a potential trial within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act.
For the above reasons, the defendants, defense counsel and the government stipulate and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), [Local Code T2]; 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) [Local Code T4].
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By: ___________________
RUSSELL L. CARLBERG
Assistant U. S. Attorney
(per email authorization)
_______________________
CHRISTOPHER H. WING
Attorney for Defendant SARA SHIRAZI
(per email authorization)
____________
RICHARD PACHTER
Attorney for Defendant SIAVASH
POURSARTIP
ORDER
The Court, having received, read and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therein, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161 and that the case is unusual and complex within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act. The Court specifically finds that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. The Court also finds that the requested continuance is necessary to provide both the prosecution and the defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. It is ordered that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation to and including March 13, 2012 shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) (ii) and (iv) and Local Codes T2 (unusual and complex case) and T4 (preparation by both prosecution and defense counsel.)
It is further ordered that the status conference in the above-entitled matter set for January 24, 2012 shall be continued to March 13, 2012 at 9:15 am.
It is so ordered.
________________________
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT