From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Vidro-Gonzalez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 22, 2011
Case No. 2:11-CR-346 JAM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 2:11-CR-346 JAM

09-22-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARGARITO VIDRO-GONZALEZ, and SERGIO ALVAREZ-MAGANA, Defendants.

DANIEL BRODERICK Federal Defender MICHAEL PETRIK, Jr. Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Margarito Vidro-Gonzalez M. Petrik for Dina Santos DINA SANTOS Attorney for Sergio Alvarez-Magana BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney M. Petrik for Heiko Coppola HEIKO COPPOLA Assistant U.S. Attorney


DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424

Federal Defender

MICHAEL PETRIK, Jr., Bar #177913

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for Defendant

MARGARITO VIDRO-GONZALEZ

STIPULATION AND TO CONTINUE

STATUS CONFERENCE TO November 1, 2011

Date: September 27, 2011

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between plaintiff, United States of America, and defendants, MARGARITO VIDRO-GONZALEZ, and SERGIO ALVAREZ-MAGANA, through their respective attorneys, that the Court should vacate the status conference scheduled for September 27, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., and reset it for November 1, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Counsel for defendants require further time to review discovery and to negotiate with the government in an effort to resolve this matter.

It is further stipulated by the parties that the Court should exclude the period from the date of this order through November 1, 2011, when it computes the time within which the trial of the above criminal prosecution must commence for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice served by granting defendants' request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants' in a speedy trial, and that this is an appropriate exclusion of time for defense preparation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) (Local Code T4).

Respectfully submitted,

DANIEL BRODERICK

Federal Defender

MICHAEL PETRIK, Jr.

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for Margarito Vidro-Gonzalez

M. Petrik for Dina Santos

DINA SANTOS

Attorney for Sergio Alvarez-Magana

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

M. Petrik for Heiko Coppola

HEIKO COPPOLA

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court Specifically finds that the ends of justice served by granting of such a continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The Court orders time excluded from the date of this order through the status conference on November 1, 2011, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) (Local Code T4).

JOHN A. MENDEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Vidro-Gonzalez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 22, 2011
Case No. 2:11-CR-346 JAM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Vidro-Gonzalez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARGARITO VIDRO-GONZALEZ, and…

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

Date published: Sep 22, 2011

Citations

Case No. 2:11-CR-346 JAM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2011)