Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

United States v. Ochoa-Espindola

August 24, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
URIEL OCHOA-ESPINDOLA ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERNCE

IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Michael M. Beckwith, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Uriel Ochoa-Espindola, Preciliano Martinez, Esq., counsel for defendant Jose Sergio Espindola, Mark J. Rosenblum, Esq., counsel for defendant Valentin Ramirez- Cardinez, Robert L. Forkner, Esq., counsel for defendant Rafael Arreola-Sahagun, Dina L. Santos, Esq., counsel for defendant Emiliano Vera-Gil, John R. Manning, Esq., counsel for defendant Jose Manuel Vera-Gil, Danny D. Brace, Esq., and counsel for defendant Luis Miguel- Rodrigues, Dan F. Koukol, Esq., that the status conference presently set for August 23, 2010 be continued to October 25, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., thus vacating the presently set status conference.

Counsel for the parties agree that this is an appropriate exclusion of time within the meaning of Title 18, United States Code § 3161(h) (7) (B) (ii) and (iv) (continuity of counsel/ reasonable time for effective preparation) and Local Code T4, and agree to exclude time from the date of the filing of the order until the date of the status conference October 25, 2010.

The parties are requesting more time to continue ongoing plea negotiations. Each defendant will need time to consider any plea offer he or she may receive. Additionally, counsel for each defendant needs more time to review the discovery in this case, discuss that discovery with their respective clients, consider evidence that may affect the disposition of this case, and discuss with their clients how to proceed. The parties stipulate and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (A).

IT IS SO STIPULATED

PRECILIANO MARTINEZ Attorney for Defendant Uriel Ochoa-Espindola

Dated: August 18, 2010

John R. Manning for MARK ROSENBLUM Attorney for Defendant Jose Sergio Espindola

John R. Manning for ROBERT FORKNER Attorney for Defendant Valentin Ramirez-Cardinez

John R. Manning for DINA L. SANTOS Attorney for Defendant Rafael Arreola-Sahagun

JOHN R. MANNING Attorney for Defendant Emiliano Vera-Gil

John R. Manning for DANNY D. BRACE, JR. Attorney for Defendant Jose Manuel Vera-Gil

John R. Manning for DAN KOUKOL Attorney for Defendant Luis Miguel Orrutia-Rodrigues

Benjamin B. Wagner United States Attorney John R. Manning for MICHAEL M. BECKWITH ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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