From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 12, 2012
NO. CR.S-11-0428 GEB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2012)

Opinion

NO. CR.S-11-0428 GEB

01-12-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN SMITH Defendant.

MARK J. REICHEL, Bar #155034 Attorney At Law 455 Capitol Mall, 3rd Floor, Suite 350 Sacramento, California 95814 Attorney for Defendant BRYAN SMITH MICHAEL E. HANSEN Attorney for Defendant ROBERT KLAUS MARK REICHEL Attorney for Defendant BRYAN SMITH STEVEN BAUER Attorney for Defendant KELLY SMITH DANIEL J. BRODERICK Federal Defender By: MARK J. REICHEL for TIMOTHY ZINDEL Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Defendant DANIEL GOLDSMITH /s/ MARK J. REICHEL for WILLIAM BONHAM Attorney for Defendant BRUCE GOLDSMITH MARK J. REICHEL for STANLEY KUBOCHI Attorney for Defendant RYDER PHILLIPS BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney By: MARK J. REICHEL for RICHARD BENDER Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff


MARK J. REICHEL, Bar #155034

Attorney At Law

455 Capitol Mall, 3rd Floor, Suite 350

Sacramento, California 95814

Attorney for Defendant

BRYAN SMITH

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

Date: January 27, 2012

Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, Richard Bender, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for plaintiff; Michael E. Hansen, attorney for defendant Robert Klaus; Mark Reichel, attorney for defendant Bryan Smith; Steven Bauer, attorney for defendant Kelly Smith; Timothy Zindel, Assistant Federal Defender, attorney for defendant Daniel Goldsmith; William Bonham, attorney for defendant Bruce Goldsmith; and Stanley Kubochi, attorney for defendant Ryder Phillips, that the previously-scheduled status conference date of January 13, 2012, be vacated and the matter set for status conference on January 27, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.

This continuance is requested to allow counsel additional time to review discovery with the defendants, to examine possible defenses and to continue investigating the facts of the case. Plea negotiations are expected to commence prior to the proposed status conference date. The Government concurs with this request.

Further, the parties agree and stipulate the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial and that time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act should therefore be excluded under 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare), from the date of the parties' stipulation to and including January 27, 2012.

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court adopt this proposed stipulation.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL E. HANSEN

Attorney for Defendant

ROBERT KLAUS

MARK REICHEL

Attorney for Defendant

BRYAN SMITH

STEVEN BAUER

Attorney for Defendant

KELLY SMITH

DANIEL J. BRODERICK

Federal Defender

By: MARK J. REICHEL for

TIMOTHY ZINDEL

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for Defendant

DANIEL GOLDSMITH

/s/ MARK J. REICHEL for

WILLIAM BONHAM

Attorney for Defendant

BRUCE GOLDSMITH

MARK J. REICHEL for

STANLEY KUBOCHI

Attorney for Defendant

RYDER PHILLIPS

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: MARK J. REICHEL for

RICHARD BENDER

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Plaintiff

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. section 3161. In addition, the Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel to this stipulation reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, January 10, 2012, to and including January 27, 2012, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), and Local Code T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is further ordered that the January 13, 2012 status conference shall be continued until January 27 2012, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 12, 2012
NO. CR.S-11-0428 GEB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN SMITH Defendant.

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

Date published: Jan 12, 2012

Citations

NO. CR.S-11-0428 GEB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2012)