IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 23, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
HAIYING FAN, AND MITCHELL WRIGHT, AND GARY GEORGE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney PHILIP A. FERRARI MICHELE BECKWITH Assistant United States Attorneys 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2744
STIPULATION CONTINUING TRIAL DATE; [proposed] ORDER
The United States of America and defendants Haiying Fan, Mitchell Wright, and Gary George, hereby request that the Court vacate the currently pending trial confirmation hearing and trial date in the above-referenced matter, and set a new trial date of June 26, 2012, for the reasons set forth below.
The government has offered defendant Gary George the opportunity to resolve this matter through pre-trial diversion, and he has accepted. He has met with Pre-Trial Services, and the parties understand that Pre-Trial is currently drafting a diversion agreement. Accordingly, it is not anticipated that defendant George will proceed to trial.
Defendant Fan is and was at the times relevant to the indictment, a licensed real estate broker. The California Department of Real Estate (DRE) instituted proceedings against Ms. Fan on the basis of the same alleged acts which are described in the above-referenced indictment. On February 13-14, 2012, the DRE held an administrative hearing in its matter. Ms. Fan was represented by counsel, and testimony was taken from various witnesses, including co-defendant Dennis Moore, as well as some of the sellers of the properties at issue in this case. The hearing was concluded, and the parties have been ordered to submit written closing arguments. A ruling is expected withing approximately 60 days.
The government is ordering a transcript of the proceedings, and it is anticipated that some of the witnesses who appeared before the DRE may testify in this case. Although Ms. Fan and her counsel was present throughout the DRE proceedings, defendant Mitchell Wright was not.
The parties jointly request that trial be continued to June 26, 2012, for the following reasons. First, it will enable the parties to obtain copies of the transcripts, portions of which may contain witness statements directly relevant to the trial in this matter. Second, the parties believe that once the DRE ruling issues and is analyzed, that analysis may aid in achieving resolution of the present case. Thus, the parties believe a continuance will not only aid in preparation for trial, but may also help avoid a trial altogether, saving Court and government resources.
The parties have been informed that June 26, 2012, is available on the Court's calendar for the commencement of a jury trial. The parties request that a trial confirmation hearing be set for June 1, 2012, and that a jury trial be set for June 26, 2012.
The parties further stipulate that the time period from the date of the originally set jury trial date of March 20, 2012, through the new trial date of June 26, 2012, should be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act.
Once the DRE transcript is prepared it will be produced to the parties. Accordingly, because of this additional discovery, and because of the need to prepare for trial and to seek resolution of the case, the parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) (local Code T4).
Based upon the request of the remaining parties, the trial confirmation hearing and trial date previously set in the above referenced matter are hereby VACATED. A trial confirmation hearing is hereby set for June 1, 2012. A jury trial will commence on June 26, 2012.
For the reasons stipulated to by the parties, good cause exists pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7), and time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act through June 26, 2012. For the reasons set forth in the stipulation, the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) (Local Code T4).
It is so ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.