Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Tieu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


July 16, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LUONG HUE TIEU, DEFENDANT.

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING HEARING AND STATUS HEARING AND [] ORDER

Both of the above-captioned cases are on the Court's calendar for August 11, 2008 at 20 9:00 a.m. The 1995 case (CR 95-20075 RMW) is set for a sentencing hearing on that date, and the 1997 case (CR 97-20105 RMW) is set for a status hearing on that same date. It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the UNITED STATES, Assistant U.S. Attorney Shawna Yen, and counsel for the Defendant Luong Hue Tieu, Geoffrey A. Braun, Esq., that the August 11, 2008 court date for the sentencing hearing in the 1995 case (CR 95-20075 RMW), and for the status hearing in the 1997 case (CR 97-20105 RMW), be continued to December 8, 2008 at 9:00 a.m

This continuance is necessary because the parties need the additional time to exchange and review the discovery in this case. The government needs the additional time to reconstruct and provide to defense counsel Mr. Braun who was newly appointed to this case in March 2008, discovery that may pertain to sentencing issues in the 1995 case, as well as to provide discovery related to the 1997 case. The original case agent who investigated this case in 1995, Special Agent Sweeney, has since transferred to another district. Special Agent Sweeney is willing to return to this district to assist in the reconstruction of the discovery from 1995, but he is currently assigned to a "detail" until about the middle of July 2008. It is anticipated that S/A Sweeney will be available to assist in the present case in or after August of 2008, after which the government will provide the discovery to defense and to the Probation Office. After the discovery is exchanged, the parties will require additional time to review the discovery and to prepare any filings prior to the sentencing hearing. Thus, this continuance is necessary for the effective preparation of counsel, and the ends of justice served by such a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a Speedy Trial within the meaning of Title 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A).

The parties stipulate that the time between August 11, 2008 and December 8, 2008 shall be excluded from the period of time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(8)(A), considering the factors set forth in Section 3161(h)(8)(B). As required by 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), it is stipulated that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial in order to ensure effective preparation of counsel. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

It is so stipulated. 9 Respectfully submitted,

SHAWNA YEN Assistant U.S. Attorney Dated: June 30, 2008

ORDER TO CONTINUE

Based on the stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the date set for the sentencing hearing in the above- captioned 1995 case (CR 05-20075 RMW) is continued from August 11, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. to December 8, 2008.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the date set for a status hearing in the above-captioned 1997 case (CR 97-20105 RMW) is continued from August 11, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. to December 8, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. Finally,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to the 1997 case (CR 97-20105 RMW), the period of time from August 11, 2008 to December 8, 2008 shall be excluded from the period of time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3161(h)(1)(F) and 3161(h)(8)(A), considering the factors set forth in Section 3161(h)(8)(B). The basis for such exclusion is that because the additional time is needed for the parties to reconstruct and exchange discovery, and for the parties to review the discovery and prepare any filings in preparation for sentencing. The Court finds that the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial to effective preparation of counsel.

20080716

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.