Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

United States of America v. Zeferina Salgado Guzman De Cortez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 19, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ZEFERINA SALGADO GUZMAN DE CORTEZ, VICTORINO EPIFANIO BAZANTE PACHECO, AND FLORENCIO MORALES-SOLANO, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney KIMBERLY A. SANCHEZ Assistant U.S. Attorney 2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401 Fresno, CA 93721 Telephone: (559)497-4000

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and requested by and between Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney and Kimberly A. Sanchez, Assistant U.S. Attorney and Rudy Banuelos, attorney for Zeferina Salgado Guzman de Cortez; Roger Litman, attorney for Victorino Epifanio Bazante Pacheco; and H. Ty Kharazi, attorney for Florencio Morales-Solano that the status conference set for January 23, 2012 be continued to April 2, 2012. The parties further stipulate and request that the Court set March 26, 2012 as the due date for the Government's response to defendants Zeferina Salgado Guzman de Cortez's and Florencio Morales-Solano's motions for discovery. The government has provided additional discovery after the filing of the defendants' motions, and the parties have agreed to further review the discovery provided to determine what outstanding discovery issues exist and to discuss proposed resolutions to the cases. The parties need additional time to accomplish those goals. Additionally, the parties have communicated with respect to a date that all counsel are available to appear in Court, and the earliest possible date is April 2, 2012. The parties further request the Court to enter an Order finding that the "ends of justice" served by a continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that the delay occasioned by such continuance is excluded from the Act's time limits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

Good cause exists. Time is excluded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120119

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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