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. Joseph Cuellar.

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


July 26, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOSEPH CUELLAR., ET AL,
DEFENDANTS.

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

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender FRANCINE ZEPEDA, Bar #91175 JEREMY S. KROGER, Bar #258956 Assistant Federal Defender Designated Counsel for Service 2300 Tulare Street, Suite 330 Fresno, California 93721-2226 Telephone: (559) 487-5561 Attorney for Defendant RUDOLPH BUENDIA, III

STIPULATION TO VACATE TRIAL AND SET ) STATUS CONFERENCE; AND ORDER

Date: September 10, 2012

Time: 1:30 p.m.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, and through their respective attorneys of record herein, that the trial currently set for September 5, 2012, and the trial confirmation hearing set for July 30, 2012, shall be vacated. The parties further stipulate that the Court shall find and/or order: (1) a status conference shall be scheduled for September 10, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.; (2) time from the date of the parties' stipulation, July 25, 2012, through, and including, the September 10, 2012, status conference shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv) and Local Codes T2 and T4, pertaining to complex and unusual case, and defense preparation; (3) due to the amount of discovery and investigation involved in this case, it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in § 3161; (4) the failure to grant the requested continuance in this case would deny counsel for defendants reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and (5) the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

The request is made by all counsel in this case. The parties make this request for the following reasons. First, the government has indicated that it will be producing substantial additional discovery of approximately 2,400 pages that it only recently received from state entities. Defense counsel will need time to review this discovery, discuss it with their clients, and conduct any further investigation that this discovery triggers. Second, there is an ongoing and related state-court case in which several discovery issues are being actively litigated. Information that has come to light as part of that litigation has independently created the need for additional investigation and, potentially, discovery requests and subpoenas. Third, in light of the additional discovery, the parties anticipate restarting plea negotiations and request that the trial be vacated in order to allow time for those negotiations. For each of these reasons, the requested continuance will conserve time and resources for all parties and the Court.

ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the above request to continue vacate the trial and trial-setting hearing now set for September 5, 2012 and July 30, 2012, respectively, and good cause appearing, HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: The Court adopts the parties' stipulation as its order in its entirety.

The Court further ORDERS that the previously set trial and trial-setting hearing dates are vacated. A status conference is now scheduled for September 10, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. This conference will also be a TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE.

The Court further ORDERS that time from the date of the parties' stipulation, July 25, 2012, through, and including, the September 10, 2012, status conference shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv) and Local Codes T2 and T4, pertaining to complex and unusual case, and defense preparation.

Based on the parties' stipulation, the Court finds: (1) due to the amount of discovery and investigation involved in this case, it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in § 3161; (2) the failure to grant the requested continuance in this case would deny counsel for defendants reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and (3) the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20120726

© 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.