Opinion
CASE NO. 2:09 MJ 250 DAD
10-05-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Sanae Quiroz-Jones, Defendant.
JOHN R. MANNING Attorney for Defendant Sanae Quiroz-Jones Benjamin B. Wagner United States Attorney TODD D. LERAS Assistant U.S. Attorney
John R. Manning
Attorney at Law
Attorney for Defendant
Sanae Quiroz-Jones
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY HEARING
The parties to this action, defendant, Sanae Quiroz-Jones and plaintiff, United States of America, hereby stipulate through their respective attorneys to continue the preliminary hearing scheduled for October 12, 2011, to December 6, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. The parties are working toward reaching a pre-indictment resolution of the pending charges and the government has provided a Plea Agreement to defense counsel.
On July 27, 2011, the Parties met in front of the Honorable Gregory G. Hollows. Judge Hollows expressed concern over the lengthy pendency and status of this matter. The Parties provided Judge Hollows with the facts and circumstances contributing to the lengthy pendency. The Parties also articulated the need and justification for an additional continuance. Judge Hollows agreed to continue the matter to September 23, 2011.
On, or about, September 23, 2011, on behalf of Ms. Jones,(and with the consent of the United States) Defense Counsel filed a Stipulation requesting the Court date be moved from September 23, 2011 to October 12, 2011. The request was due to the fact that Ms. Jones lives out of the area and suffers from significant health problems (liver disease, diabetes, fibromyalgia, and a myriad of other medical problems). Ms. Jones is unable to drive and must rely on others for transportation. Defense counsel attempted to discuss the settlement proposal with Ms. Jones over the phone. However, given Ms. Jones significant health issues and the effect of the medically necessary prescription medication Ms. Jones must take, Counsel for the Defense believes a phone conference is an inadequate and ineffective means of communicating with the Defendant. The Court (again, Hon. Gregory G. Hollows) graciously agreed to continue the matter to October 12, 2011.
Sadly, on October 3, 2011, Counsel for the Defense learned Ms. Jones had fallen a few days earlier and struck her head, causing a laceration to her face requiring stitches. Ms. Jones also broke her arm as a result of the fall. (At the time of the drafting of this Stipulation, Ms. Jones had not yet had the opportunity to meet with the orthopedic surgeon.) Ms. Jones is not in the hospital, but because of the concern of her having a stroke, her care givers must wake her periodically throughout the night. Moreover, because a concern over possible adverse effects of the drug interaction(s), Ms. Jones has very limited options with respect to pain medication.
Presently, Ms. Jones can not travel comfortably and, in any event, is not capable of concentrating for more than just a few minutes at time. Counsel for the Defense needs additional time to arrange for a face-to-face meeting with Ms. Jones in order to effectively communicate the terms of the proposed settlement; its consequences; and, to answer Ms. Jones' questions and advise her on how to proceed.
The parties further agree that the above reason constitutes good cause to extend the time for preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1, and that the time within which the indictment must be filed should be extended to December 6, 2011, pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), for the reasons stated above.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN R. MANNING
Attorney for Defendant
Sanae Quiroz-Jones
Benjamin B. Wagner
United States Attorney
TODD D. LERAS
Assistant U.S. Attorney
John R. Manning
Attorney at Law
Attorney for Defendant
Sanae Quiroz-Jones
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sanae Quiroz-Jones, Defendant.
Case No. 2:09 MJ 250 DAD
ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that the October 12, 2011 preliminary hearing for defendant Quiroz-Jones, be continued to December 6, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. I find that the ends of justice warrant an exclusion of time and outweigh the interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial based on the grounds stated in the stipulation of the parties. THEREFORE IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that time be excluded pursuant to Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) from the date of this order to December 6, 2011. IT IS SO ORDERED.
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE