From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Yagi

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Mar 25, 2013
CR 12-0483 EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013)

Opinion

          MELINDA HAAG, (CABN 132612), United States Attorney.

          MIRANDA KANE, (CABN 150630), Chief, Criminal Division.

          ANDREW P. CAPUTO, (CABN 203655), Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

          JENNIFER WIRSCHING, Attorney for Defendant Mandy Natchi Yagi.

          DEAN JOHNSON, Attorney for Defendant Peter Wong.


          STIPULATION REQUESTING CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

          EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

         The parties respectfully stipulate as follows:

         1. Trial is currently set for May 6, 2013, with pretrial filings due beginning on April 2, 2013.

         2. The parties participated in a settlement conference last week before the Honorable Laurel Beeler. The settlement conference proved unsuccessful. In the wake of the failed settlement conference, the United States intends to seek a superseding indictment in advance of trial.

         3. In light of the timing of the above developments and their proximity to the currently scheduled trial date, the parties jointly believe there is good cause to continue the trial date for a period of less than three months. Accordingly, after consultation with the Court's staff about the Court's schedule, the parties respectfully ask the Court to continue trial in this matter to July 22, 2013.

         4. As noted above, the government plans to seek a superseding indictment. The superseding indictment will result in additional discovery being provided to the defense. Counsel for both defendants will require time to review the additional discovery and to investigate the additional claims contained in the anticipated new charging document. Accordingly, the parties jointly request that the Court exclude, in computing the time within which trial must commence pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1), the period from March 22, 2013, through July 22, 2013. The parties agree that failing to grant the requested continuance would deny counsel for the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, in this case.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         [PROPOSED] ORDER

         Pursuant to stipulation and for good cause shown, trial in this matter is hereby continued to July 22, 2013. The pretrial conference is continued to July 9, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

         The time from March 22, 2013, through July 22, 2013, is hereby excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). For the reasons specified in the parties' stipulation, the Court finds that exclusion of this time is necessary for the effective preparation of defendants' counsel and that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance and excluding this time from calculation outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Yagi

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Mar 25, 2013
CR 12-0483 EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Yagi

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MANDY NATCHI YAGI and PETER WONG…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Mar 25, 2013

Citations

CR 12-0483 EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013)