From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Vasquez

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 4, 2015
2:15-cr-00073-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 4, 2015)

Opinion


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE VASQUEZ, FELICIANO OCHOA REYES, and LUIS ALBERTO GARCIA BARRATO, Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE ACOSTA, JORGE RIOS, JOSE LUIS AGUILAR, DIEGO VELAZQUEZ, and FELICIANO OCHOA REYES, Defendants. No. 2:15-cr-00073-GEB United States District Court, E.D. California. May 4, 2015

          RELATED CASE ORDER

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.

         On April 30, 2015, the United States of America filed a "Notice of Related Cases" in which it states:

The related action is United States v. Jose Acosta et al., 2:15-CR-92 JAM. The instant case and United States v. Acosta et al. arise out of the same investigation - specifically, a Title III wiretap investigation - and the two cases involve separate but overlapping methamphetamine trafficking conspiracies. Consequently, one of the defendant[s] named in the instant case - Feliciano Ochoa Reyes - is also a defendant in the Acosta case. Based on the DEA investigation in this case, the United States alleges that the defendants in the instant case were involved in supplying methamphetamine to Acosta's organization - the organization charged in the Acosta case. Further, the discovery in the instant case and in the Acosta is based on the same materials.

Therefore, assignment of both cases to a single district court judge is likely to affect a savings of judicial effort and other economies because the two cases... involve the same underlying conduct, overlapping methamphetamine trafficking conspiracies, and the same discovery. In short, the two cases have substantial overlap, and assignment of both cases to a single judge would conserve judicial resources and promote overall judicial efficiency.

(Notice Related Cases, ECF No. 14.)

         Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Under the regular practice of this court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. Therefore, action 2:15-CR-00092 is reassigned to the undersigned judge for all further proceedings, and the caption on the reassigned cases shall show the initials "GEB." Further, any date currently set in the reassigned case is VACATED. The Clerk shall make an appropriate adjustment in the assignment of criminal cases to compensate for this reassignment.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Status Conference is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on May 22, 2015 in action 2:15-CR-00092.


Summaries of

United States v. Vasquez

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 4, 2015
2:15-cr-00073-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 4, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Vasquez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE VASQUEZ, FELICIANO OCHOA…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: May 4, 2015

Citations

2:15-cr-00073-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 4, 2015)