UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AT SACRAMENTO
September 18, 2012
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
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 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Jeffrey D. Schwartz A ATTORNEY AT L AW Jacoby's Storehouse 791 8th Street, Suite H Arcata, CA 95521 Tel: (707) 822-2707 Email: email@example.com Attorneys for Defendant JOSE PINEDA-MENDOZA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS DATE; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL
Date: September 24, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 5,
Counsel for the government and defendant respectfully submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order requesting that the September 24, 2012 Status date in this matter be continued to October 22, 2012. Counsel agree and stipulate that on September 13, 2012 Magistrate Judge Hollows granted the motion of a non-party to quash further compliance with defendant's Rule 17 subpoena, that renewed settlement talks between the parties have resulted, and that defense counsel needs additional time to obtain information that may further settlement, to meet with defendant and an interpreter to discuss what to do, and for defendant and defense counsel to also talk it over with defendant's family.
Counsel further stipulate to the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from the date of this Order until October 22, 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. On September 13, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hollows granted the motion of non-party Original Productions, Inc. to quash further compliance with defendant's Rule 17 subpoena. The Order was filed on September 14, 2012.
2. That same day, AUSA Daniel McConkie renewed his previous plea offer to defendant, and we discussed the possibility of some further small adjustment to the proposed plea, depending on further discussions and the receipt of some medical records that I am trying to obtain but do not have yet.
3. I also need to discuss the proposed plea with my client and his family. My client is in custody in the main County Jail in Sacramento and only speaks Spanish. I need to arrange for an interpreter and then meet with him in person at the jail to discuss the proposed plea agreement. I have already sent information about the proposed plea and defendant's options to his family. They will probably want to meet with defendant in person to discuss it as well, and may also have questions for me. We cannot accomplish all of that by the next status date of September 24, 2012.
4. AUSA Daniel McConkie and I have agreed to ask the Court to postpone the September 24, 2012 status conference date until October 22, 2012 in order to permit me to get the medical records I have requested and to meet with defendant to discuss the proposed plea agreement and for defendant's family to meet with him and to discuss the case with me.
5. I am informed and believe that October 22, 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: September 18, 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 September 24, 2012 is continued to October 22, 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.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.