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.

The United States of America v. Jose Pineda-Mendoza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AT SACRAMENTO


August 24, 2012

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOSE PINEDA-MENDOZA, DEFENDANT.

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS DATE; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL Date: August 27, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 5, Hon. William B. Shubb

Counsel for the government and defendant respectfully submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order requesting that the August 27, 2012 Status and subpoena compliance date in this matter be continued to September 24, 2012. Counsel agree and stipulate that the non-party upon whom defendant served a Court-approved Rule 17 subpoena has filed a Motion to Quash (docket #35), which is set to be heard by Magistrate Judge Hollows on September 6, 2012, and the parties will not know how to proceed until after a ruling on that Motion.

Counsel further stipulate to the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from the date of this Order until September 24, 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: August 24, 2012 Daniel S. McConkie Daniel S. McConkie Assistant United States Attorney Date: August 24, 2012 Brian J. Petersen 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. On March 14, 2012, the Court authorized issuance of a subpoena (docket #23) directed to the producers of a TV show called "Wild Justice" which stars one of the officers involved in defendant's case.

2. On March 28, 2012, I sent the subpoena to Los Angeles to be served, and it was served on April 2, 2012 (docket #24). The status and setting date for this case has been continued several times while the custodian of records has worked to collect the subpoenaed records, and while I have tried to narrow the scope of my requests to assist the custodian.

3. On August 21, 2012, counsel for the custodian of records filed a Motion to Quash (docket #35), which is set for hearing before Magistrate Judge Hollows on September 6, 2012. I will not know how to proceed in this matter until after Magistrate Judge Hollows rules on the Motion to Quash.

4. AUSA Daniel McConkie and I have agreed to ask the Court to postpone the August 27, 2012 status conference date until September 24, 2012 in order to permit the hearing on the Motion to Quash to take place first, and Mr. McConkie authorized me to "sign" this stipulation on his behalf.

5. I am informed and believe that September 24, 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: August 24, 2012

Brian J. Petersen Brian J. Petersen

ORDER

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

The status date of August 27, 2012 is continued to September 24, 2012. 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.

20120824

© 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.