From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ramos

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 26, 2013
No. CR-12-0799 YGR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013)

Opinion

No. CR-12-0799 YGR

03-26-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL RAMOS, Defendant.

STEVEN G. KALAR Federal Public Defender NED SMOCK Assistant Federal Public Defender Counsel for Defendant DANIEL RAMOS


STEVEN G. KALAR
Federal Public Defender
NED SMOCK
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Counsel for Defendant DANIEL RAMOS

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO RESET

STATUS CONFERENCE DATE AND TO

EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY

TRIAL ACT

The above-captioned matter is set on March 28, 2013 for a status conference. The parties request that this Court continue the hearing to May 2, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. and that the Court exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act between March 28, 2013 and May 2, 2013.

This is a case charging Possession of Methamphetamine for Sale; Unlawful Possession of a Machine Gun; Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime; and Possession of a Machine Gun in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime. As charged, the defendant faces the possibility of mandatory minimum penalties of 45 years. The undersigned defense counsel was appointed in this matter after Mr. Ramos' last appearance before this Court last month. Since being appointed, counsel has been reviewing the discovery provided thus far, performing legal research, and developing an investigation plan. The defense also submitted to the government last week a letter requesting several additional categories of discovery. The government is gathering records it believes are discoverable and will provide them to the defense as soon as they are available. Additional time is needed to obtain all relevant discovery, to review all discovery, and to perform necessary investigation and legal research.

The parties agree the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. Therefore, the parties further stipulate and request that the Court exclude time between March 28, 2013 and May 2, 2013 in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) for adequate preparation of counsel. IT IS SO STIPULATED:

______________________

NED SMOCK

Assistant Federal Public Defender

______________________

NATALIE LEE

Assistant United States Attorney
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v. DANIEL RAMOS Defendant.

No. CR-12-0799 YGR


ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

REQUEST TO RESET STATUS

CONFERENCE DATE AND TO

EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY

TRIAL ACT

The parties jointly requested that the March 28, 2013 status conference in this matter be reset for a status conference on May 2, 2013, and that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act between March 28, 2013 and May 2, 2013 to allow for the effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The defense is obtaining and reviewing discovery. Additional time is needed for that purpose and to allow sufficient time for the defense to analyze the evidence and perform necessary investigation. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. Good cause appearing therefor, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is set for a status conference on May 2, 2013 at 2:00 p.m., and that time between March 28, 2013 and May 2, 2013 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act to allow for the effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

______________________

HON. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Ramos

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 26, 2013
No. CR-12-0799 YGR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Ramos

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL RAMOS, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 26, 2013

Citations

No. CR-12-0799 YGR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013)