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. Carrion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 14, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ELIZABETH CARRION, ANGELITO EVANGELISTA, ARTHUR EVANGELISTA, ROMMEL ANTOLIN, DEFENDANTS.

ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME

On June 29, 2010, in the courtroom of the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, United States District Judge, this matter came on for status conference. Russell L. Carlberg, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared for the United States. Bruce L. Locke, Esq., appeared on behalf of defendant Elizabeth Carrion. Dwight M. Samuel, Esq., appeared on behalf of defendant Angelito Evangelista. Scott Cameron, Esq., appeared for defendant Arthur Evangelista. Carl Larson, Esq., appeared for defendant Rommel Antolin.

The Court ordered both the trial date of September 14, 2010 and the trial confirmation hearing of August 31, 2010, vacated. That is because a second superseding indictment was returned in this case on May 6, 2010, adding new charges and the following new defendants: Arthur Evangelista and Rommel Antolin. The case was set for status on October 5, 2010.

The government has provided in electronic format a total of approximately 30,000 pages of discovery. Defense counsel represented that additional time was needed to review these documents, and to investigate and to prepare the case for trial. Defense counsel also represented that the case was complex due to the nature of the mortgage trqansactions. Accordingly, defense counsel moved to waive time under the Speedy Trial Act.

The Court finds that the interests of justice outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Time, therefore, will be excluded as to all defendants from June 29, 2010, through and including October 5, 2010, on the basis of (1) reasonable preparation of defense counsel taking into account the exercise of due diligence, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(B)(iv) (local code T-4), and (2) case complexity, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(B)(ii) (local code T-2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100714

© 1992-2010 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.