The opinion of the court was delivered by: Claudia Wilken United States District Judge
JOHN J. JORDAN, ESQ. (State Bar No. 175678) 400 Montgomery Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 391-4814 Fax: (415) 391-4308 Counsel for Defendant XIN SHAO
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING STATUS HEARING
The United States, by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle J. Kane, and the defendant, XIN SHAO, through John J. Jordan, counsel of record, hereby move this Court to continue the date of 16 defendant's status hearing from June 1, 2011, until June 15, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., to allow time for 17 the parties to complete the discovery process; to allow the defendant to review discovery 18 received from the government; and to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.
1. The defendant is charged by indictment with smuggling goods into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 545 (counts one through eight); trafficking in counterfeit 21 goods, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2320(a)(counts nine through thirteen); and two forfeiture 22 counts.
2. The United States has provided the defendant with discovery, which includes several compact discs reports and other materials relevant to this case. Counsel for the 25 defendants need additional time to review these materials with his client. In addition, counsel for 26 both parties are engaged in discussions regarding the loss amounts, which are highly relevant to sentencing guideline calculations. The parties have conferred regarding the status of the case and 2 agree that the defendant and counsel should have an opportunity to review the discovery already 3 provided, in order to allow for effective assistance of counsel.
Finally, the parties are engaged in settlement discussions, which may potentially resolve all or part of the matter before the Court. The defendant expect to receive a plea agreement 6 within the next two weeks, which the attorney will then review with the client.
3. The case is now set for an appearance before this Court on June 1, 2011.
However, the parties believe that defense counsel will require an additional 14 days to review the 9 discovery provided by the government before determining whether pre-trial motions should be 10 filed, or instead resolve the case by entering into a plea agreement.
4. The parties accordingly ask the Court to continue the matter until June 15, 2011, to allow counsel for the defendants time to review the discovery. If the case is not resolved by 13 that date, the defendant expects to ask the Court to set a motion schedule on that date.
5. All parties stipulate and agree that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance to facilitate review of discovery outweigh the interest of the public and the 16 defendants in a speedy trial, to allow continuity of counsel and effective preparation of counsel, 17 taking into account the need for due diligence, in accordance with Title 18, sect. 3161(h)(8)(A).
6. Accordingly, the parties ask the Court to continue the matter until June 15, 2011, 2008, and order that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act until that date. 20 21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. XIN ...