IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 22, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ALFREDO DEL TORO, LUIS EDUARDO SANCHEZ, JERONE BRYANT WELLS, DAVID AVILA-SANDOVAL, GABRIEL FERNANDO GARCIA, GREGORIO TELLEZ, GERARDO ALCALA, ISREAL DEL TORO-LOZA TOMAS SOTELLO, SEARCY ANDREWS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton
ORDER AFTER HEARING
This matter came before the Court for Status Conference on October 19, 2010, in the courtroom of the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior U.S. District Court Judge. The government was represented by, Assistant United States Attorney Richard Bender, standing in for Assistant United States Attorney Todd Leras. Defendant Alfredo Del Toro was present in court with his attorney, Assistant Federal Defender, Caro Marks; defendant Luis Eduardo Sanchez, was present in court with his attorney Philip Cozens; defendant Jerone Bryant Wells, was present in court with his attorney, Michael Chastaine; defendant David Avila-Sandoval, was present in court with his attorney Michael Hansen; defendant Gabriel Fernando Garcia was not present in court, his waiver of personal presence having been filed in the court's files, and his attorney, Christopher Cosca, was present in court on his behalf; defendant Gregorio Tellez was present in court with his attorney Danny Brace; defendant Gerardo Alcala was present in court with attorney Christopher Cosca, standing in for his attorney Michael Bigelow; defendant Isreal Del Toro-Loza, was present in court with his attorney, Clemente Jimenez; and defendant Tomas Sotelo was present in court with attorney Michael Hansen, standing in for his attorney Kyle Knapp. Defendant Searcy Andrews was not present, the representation to the court being that he was in county custody on another case. Attorney Clemente Jimenez stood in for Mr. Andrews' attorney, Erin Radekin.
Defense counsel requested that the matter be set for further status conference on December 7, 2010 at 9:15 am.. The parties represented that this was a wiretap case in which discovery had not yet been provided, but was forthcoming. The parties agreed there was an ongoing need for counsel preparation. Given the nature of the case, the number of defendants and the thus-far undisclosed discovery, the parties requested the court exclude time both for counsel preparation (Local Rule T-4) and for complexity (Local Rule T-2), which motion the court granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter be set for further Status Conference on December 7, 2010, at 9:15 am..
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(8)(B)(ii)and(iv) [complexity, reasonable time to prepare] (Local Rules T2, T4), the period from October 19, 2010 to and including December 7, 2010 is excluded from the time computations required by the Speedy Trial Act due to complexity of the case and ongoing preparation of counsel.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.