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


October 18, 2012

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS DATE; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

Date: October 22, 2012 Time: 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 5,

Hon. William B. Shubb

Counsel for the government and defendant respectfully submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order requesting that the October 22, 2012 Status date in this matter be continued to November 5, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel agree and stipulate that the government and defense have been discussing settlement since the last status date, that defendant provided the government with some discovery on October 10, 2012 that will affect the disposition, that the government needs to get approval for its final offer, and that defendant and defense counsel and defendant's family need to discuss it.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: October 18, 2012 Daniel S. McConkie Daniel S. McConkie Assistant United States Attorney Date: October 18, 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 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 was trying to obtain but did not have yet.

3. I obtained those records and provided them to Mr. McConkie, along with some other evidence in mitigation, on October 10, 2012. I have also met with defendant to discuss a possible plea and have also discussed it with defendant's family. Mr. McConkie is seeking approval from his office for an offer that will probably resolve the case, but does not have it yet. In any event, I still need to discuss it with defendant, and must do that in person with the assistance of an interpreter. We cannot accomplish that before Monday.

4. AUSA Daniel McConkie and I have agreed to ask the Court to postpone the October 22, 2012 status conference date until November 5, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in order to allow us hopefully to finalize the disposition.

5. I am informed and believe that November 5, 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.

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 October 22, 2012 is continued to November 5, 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.

Date: October 22, 2012

20121018

© 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.