Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

The United States of America v. Jose Pineda-Mendoza


March 12, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. William B. Shubb

Brian J. Petersen P ETERSEN L AW O FFICE 360 Ritch Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: (415) 777-3174 Fax: (415) 777-3175 Email: Jeffrey D. Schwartz A ATTORNEY AT L AW Jacoby's Storehouse 791 8th Street, Suite H Arcata, CA 95521 Tel: (707) 822-2707 Fax: (707) 633-1900 Email: Attorneys for Defendant JOSE PINEDA-MENDOZA



Date: March 12, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom 5,

Counsel for the government and defendant respectfully submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order requesting that the March 12, 2012 Status date in this matter be continued to April 16, 2012. Counsel agree and stipulate that after ongoing discussions the prosecution in the last few days has extended a plea offer to defendant. Defense counsel needs time to discuss the offer with defendant and to subpoena some records that might make a difference to the proposed plea bargain.

Counsel further stipulate to the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from the date of this Order until April 16, 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.


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, then to February 6, 2012, and then to March 12, 2012, and the Court approved the requests. During that period, Mr. McConkie obtained some of the discovery I requested, and has now concluded that he has obtained everything that he can get. Mr. McConkie and I met in person on November 29, 2011 to discuss the case. I proposed a way to Mr. McConkie to resolve the case. He is considered my proposal and suggested that he might make a counter-proposal after discussing the matter in his office. After some further back-and-forth discussion, he extended an offer to my client on Monday, March 5, 2012. Mr. McConkie says that his offer might change if I were to present him with evidence going to the credibility of one of the law enforcement officers involved in defendant's case.

4. I plan to meet with defendant on March 8, 2012 to discuss the government's offer, and I will explain to him that I am asking to continue the status conference again. He has always said that he wants me to be prepared and understands that it takes time.

5. I am also separately asking the Court to approve the issuance of a subpoena, directed to a video production company in Los Angeles, that I hope will lead to the sort of evidence that might soften the government's offer. Mr. McConkie understands that is my objective and does not object to excluding time for that purpose.

6. Mr. McConkie and I have agreed to a new date of April 16, 2012, and Mr. McConkie informed me that I could "sign" this Stipulation on his behalf.

7. I am informed and believe that April 19, 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.

Dated: February 2, 2012

__________Brian J. Petersen______

Brian J. Petersen


Based on the above Stipulation, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The status date of March 12, 2012 is continued to April 16, 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.


© 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.