UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AT SACRAMENTO
December 8, 2011
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Brian J. Petersen
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS DATE; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL
Date: December 12, 2011
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Courtroom 5, Hon. William B. Shubb
Counsel for the government and defendant respectfully submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order requesting that the December 12, 2011 Status date in this matter be continued to February 6, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel agree and stipulate that the prosecution has recently provided additional discovery pursuant to defense requests, that both parties continue to perform additional investigation, and that the parties are actively engaged in settlement discussions.
Counsel further stipulate to the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from the date of this Order until February 6, 2012. Exclusion of time is proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) and local code T4 because the requested continuance is intended to allow the defense additional time to prepare its case, thereby ensuring effective assistance of counsel.
Respectfully submitted, Date: December 8, 2011 /s/ Daniel S. McConkie Assistant United States Attorney Date: December 8, 2011 /s/ Brian J. Petersen Attorney for Defendant JOSE PINEDA-MENDOZA
DECLARATION OF BRIAN J. PETERSEN
I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California, and I have been retained by defendant herein JOSE PINEDA-MENDOZA ("defendant"). I make this declaration from facts within my own personal knowledge, except where stated on information and belief, in which case I believe the facts stated to be true. If called to testify in this matter, I could and would do so competently.
1. I filed a Substitution of Attorneys in this matter on September 4, 2011, which was approved by the Court shortly thereafter. Around the same time, by stipulation counsel for the government and myself continued the status date until October 17, 2011.
2. Since then, I obtained and reviewed all of the discovery and met with my client and an interpreter to discuss it. On September 28, 2011, I requested some additional evidence from AUSA Daniel McConkie.
3. Mr. McConkie and I stipulated to continue the next status conference date from October 17, 2011 to December 12, 2011, and the Court approved the request. Since then, Mr. McConkie obtained some of the discovery I requested, and is continuing to try to get me the rest. Mr. McConkie and I met in person on November 29, 2011 to discuss the case. I have proposed a way to Mr. McConkie to resolve the case, and he is considering my proposal and suggested that he might make a counter-proposal after discussing the matter in his office. We also agreed to stipulate to continue the December 12, 2011 status date while this is going on. Mr. McConkie also recently provided me with additional discovery, and I will need additional time to review it with my client and perform additional investigation.
4. That same day, I met with defendant and explained to him what was going on, including our plan to ask to continue the December 12, 2011 status date. He wants me to have enough time to prepare and does not object to the continuance.
5. Mr. McConkie and I have agreed to a new date of February 6, 2012, and Mr. McConkie informed me that I could "sign" this Stipulation on his behalf.
6. I am informed and believe that February 6, 2012 is an available date for the Court.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to California law, that the foregoing is true and correct, except as to matters I allege based on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. This declaration was executed at San Francisco, California, on the date indicated below.
Based on the above Stipulation, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The status date of December 12, 2011 is continued to February 6, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. Based on the stipulated facts set forth above, the Court finds that exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) and local code T4) is appropriate to permit adequate preparation of counsel. The Court further finds that the ends of justice in this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
Date: December 9, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.