From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ruelas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 17, 2011
No. CR 11-00558 LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011)

Opinion

No. CR 11-00558 LHK No. CR 11-00559 EJD No. CR 11-00560 DLJ No. CR 11-00706 DLJ

11-17-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL LEON RUELAS and LORENZO ISRAEL GARCIA, Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LORENZO ISRAEL GARCIA, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL LEON RUELAS, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MIGUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ and MICHAEL LEON RUELAS, Defendants.

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)‘ Chief, Criminal Division THOMAS M. O'CONNELL (NYSBN 1501950) DANIEL R. KALEBA (CABN 223789) Assistant United States Attorneys Attorneys for Plaintiff


MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)

United States Attorney

MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)‘

Chief, Criminal Division

THOMAS M. O'CONNELL (NYSBN 1501950)

DANIEL R. KALEBA (CABN 223789)

Assistant United States Attorneys

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

On November 3, 2011, the court ordered the above cases related pursuant to Criminal Local Rule 8-1. The first case, charging defendants MICHAEL LEON RUELAS (CR 11-00558 LHK) was set for November 16, 2011 before Judge Koh. His co-defendant, LORENZO ISRAEL GARCIA is set for December 7, 2011, also before Judge Koh. The remaining captioned cases are scheduled before Judges Jensen and Davila.

The cases were all put over so that so that the discovery process could be commenced and defense counsel would have sufficient time to review the materials and confer with their clients. However, in order to comply with Local Rule 8-1, the cases must be consolidated to the same dates. Moreover, discovery is still not complete. The parties therefore hereby stipulate and agree to continue the matters until December 14, 2011, and to exclusions of time under the Speedy Trial Act, and that said exclusions of time are appropriate based on the defendants' need for effective preparation of counsel. SO STIPULATED:

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

THOMAS M. O'CONNELL

Assistant United States Attorney

DIANA WEISS

Counsel for Gonzalez

LARA VINNARD

Counsel for Ruelas

JACK GORDON

Counsel for Gonzalez

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the above cases are continued until December 14, 2011. The Court further finds that based on the defendant's need for effective preparation of counsel, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court therefore concludes that this exclusion of time should be made under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h) (7)(B)(iv). SO ORDERED.

LUCY H. KOH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Ruelas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 17, 2011
No. CR 11-00558 LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Ruelas

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL LEON RUELAS and LORENZO…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Nov 17, 2011

Citations

No. CR 11-00558 LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011)