From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Rodriquez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 26, 2011
Mag. No. 2:10-mj-00149-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2011)

Opinion

Mag. No. 2:10-mj-00149-EFB

09-26-2011

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin Gonzales Rodriquez, Defendant

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney Jason Hitt, Esq. by by Jan David Karowsky w/ Mr. Hitt's's approval Jason Hitt Assistant U.S. Attorney by Jan David Karowsky JAN DAVID KAROWSKY Attorney at Law A Professional Corporation Jan David Karowsky, Esq. JAN DAVID KAROWSKY Attorney for Defendant Benjamin Gonzales Rodriquez


JAN DAVID KAROWSKY

Attorney at Law

A Professional Corporation

Attorney for Defendant

Benjamin Gonzales Rodriquez

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING

AND EXCLUSION OF TIME

DATE: September 29, 2011

TIME: 2:00 p.m.

JUDGE: Hon. Kendall J. Newman

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United State Attorney Jason Hitt, counsel for the plaintiff, United States of America, and defendant, Benjamin Gonzales Rodriquez, by and through his counsel, Jan David Karowsky, Esq., that good cause continues to exist to extend the preliminary hearing currently set for September 29, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. to December 2, 2011 at 2:00 p.m., pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 5.1(d).

Good cause continues to exist to extend the time for the Preliminary hearing within the meaning of Rule 5.1(d).

Good cause exists to extend the time for the preliminary hearing within the meaning of Rule 5.1(d) because the entirety of the extensive discovery will be provided to the defense and a draft plea agreement prior to the next preliminary hearing date. The government and the defendant believe a resolution can be reached in this case and such a pre-indictment resolution of the case would benefit the defendant. As a result, the defendant agrees that a continuance of the preliminary hearing date will not prejudice the defendant because a pre-indictment resolution could result in overall sentencing exposure that is significantly reduced for the defendant. Counsel believe a resolution on this case may occur if additional time to continue the preliminary hearing is granted.

The parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding time from September 29, 2011 to December 2, 2011, so that counsel for the defendant may have the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (b) (iv). Specifically, the defense agrees that it needs even more time to continue discussions with the government regarding resolution of the case against this defendant, to review the voluminous discovery in the case, to effectively evaluate the posture of the case and potentially prepare for trial, and conduct further investigation into mitigation of the defendant's federal sentencing exposure in this case. Id. For these reasons, the defendant, 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 defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (A); Local Code T4.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

Jason Hitt, Esq. by

by Jan David Karowsky w/

Mr. Hitt's's approval

by Jason Hitt

Assistant U.S. Attorney

by Jan David Karowsky

JAN DAVID KAROWSKY

Attorney at Law

A Professional Corporation

Jan David Karowsky, Esq.

by JAN DAVID KAROWSKY

Attorney for Defendant

Benjamin Gonzales Rodriquez

Based upon the representations of counsel and the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court finds good cause to extend the Preliminary Hearing currently set for September 29, 2011 to December 2, 2011, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 5.1(d);
2. Based upon the representations and stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that the time exclusion under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (A) and Local Code T4 applies and the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant's in a speedy trial based upon the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (B) (iv). Accordingly, time under the Speedy Trial Act shall be excluded from September 29, 2011 to and including December 2, 2011.
3. No further extensions will be granted absent compelling reasons.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Gregory G. Hollows

UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Rodriquez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 26, 2011
Mag. No. 2:10-mj-00149-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Rodriquez

Case Details

Full title:United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin Gonzales Rodriquez…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 26, 2011

Citations

Mag. No. 2:10-mj-00149-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2011)