From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Rodriquez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2012
Mag. No. 2:10-mj-00149 EFB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012)

Opinion

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

01-17-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BENJAMIN GONZALES RODRIQUEZ, Defendant.

JASON HITT Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Hitt for Mr. Karowsky JAN KAROWSKY, ESQ. Counsel for defendant Benjamin GONZALES RODRIQUEZ Authorized to sign for Mr. Karowsky on 01-17-12


BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

JASON HITT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United .States Attorney Jason Hitt, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Benjamin Gonzales RODRIQUEZ, by and through his counsel Jan Karowsky, Esq., that good cause exists to extend the preliminary hearing currently set for January 18, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. to February 8, 2012, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d).

Good cause exists to extend the time for the preliminary hearing within meaning of Rule 5.1(d) because the parties are finalizing plea negotiations and expect that a guilty plea will be entered prior to the next-requested date of February 8, 2012. In the intervening time, the parties will be negotiating the terms of th plea agreement. 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 will 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 January 18, 2012, to February 8, 2012, so that counsel for the defendant may have 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 additional time to continue discussions with the government regarding resolution of the case against this defendant, reviewing the discovery in the case, 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 ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A); Local Code T4.

_________________

JASON HITT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Jason Hitt for Mr. Karowsky

JAN KAROWSKY, ESQ.

Counsel for defendant Benjamin GONZALES RODRIQUEZ

Authorized to sign for Mr.

Karowsky on 01-17-12

Based upon the representations by 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 January 18, 2012, to February 8, 2010, at 2:00 p.m., before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 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. 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 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 January 18, 2012, up to and including February 8, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Rodriquez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2012
Mag. No. 2:10-mj-00149 EFB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012)
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 17, 2012

Citations

Mag. No. 2:10-mj-00149 EFB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012)