IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 22, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ALFREDO DEL TORO, LUIS EDUARDO SANCHEZ, SEAN BLACKWELL,
JERONE BRYANT WELLS, DAVID AVILA-SANDOVAL, GABRIEL FERNANDO GARCIA, GREGORIO TELLEZ, GERARDO ALCALA, ISREAL DEL TORO-LOZA TOMAS SOTELLO, SEARCY ANDREWS,
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 July 19, 2011, in the courtroom of the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior U.S. District Court Judge. The government was represented by, 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 attorney Michael Hansen appearing in court on behalf of attorney Philip Cozens; defendant Sean Blackwell, was present in court with his attorney Scott Tedmon; defendant Jerone Bryant Wells, was present in court with his attorney, Michael Chastaine; defendant David AvilaSandoval, was present in court with his attorney Michael Hansen; attorney Michael Chastaine stood in at the hearing for attorney Christopher Cosca on behalf of defendant Gabriel Fernando Garcia, who was not present in court, his waiver of personal presence having been filed in the court's files; defendant Gregorio Tellez was present in court with his attorney Danny Brace; defendant Gerardo Alcala was present in court with his attorney Michael Bigelow; defendant Israel Del Toro-Loza, was present in court with his attorney, Clemente Jimenez; and defendant Tomas Sotelo was present in court with his attorney Kyle Knapp. The matter regarding Defendant Searcy Andrews was continued to July 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm. Attorney Erin Radekin was present in court on his behalf.
Defense counsel requested that the matter be set for further status conference on September 20, 2011 at 9:15 a.m.. The parties represented that this was a wiretap case in which all discovery had not yet been provided, but was forthcoming, necessitating 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 September 20, 2011, 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 July 19, 2011 to and including September 20, 2011 is excluded from the time computations required by the Speedy Trial Act due to complexity of the case and ongoing preparation of counsel. The Court finds that the interest of justice served by this continuance outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.