IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 20, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ANTHONY VASSALLO DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Garland E. Jr. Burrell,
TO CONTINUE TRIAL DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION
Date: March 4, 2013 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Defendant, ANTHONY VASSALLO, (hereinafter "Anthony"), through counsel files this unopposed motion to continue the trial date to March 4, 2013, with a trial confirmation hearing of February 1, 2013.
The signature of the United States's representative affixed below signifies their non-opposition to the motion and their agreement that the attached Order should be signed without the need for a hearing on the matter, and may be signed as soon as is practicable by the Court.
The grounds for the motion are that defense counsel still needs to perform the following and will perform the following pretrial investigation:
1. EIMT Search. Obtain and review documents obtained via search warrant of defendant's business location, EIMT. These are currently located at the office of the FBI. There are approximately five boxes of documents from the search warrant, as well as computer evidence; items not yet reviewed by any prior defense counsel.
2. Kenitzer's Search. Obtain and review all items taken in the search Warrant for co defendant Kenitzer's home. The evidence procured during the search of Ken Kenitzer's residence is at the IRS. There are approximately 6 boxes of documents as well as computer evidence (images, not original computing systems). The government has made an offer to provide complete disk images of the electronic evidence upon defense request and provision of adequate media for storage of the image.
3. SEC records. Obtain and review documents from the SEC's investigation which resulted in its gathering of significant materials from third parties including those already produced as well as additional documents in the SEC's possession. The government previously worked with the SEC to make those documents available to the defense for review, and the government does not believe prior defense counsel reviewed those documents.
4. Receiver documents. The government has produced an additional 1500 pages obtained from the Receiver. The defense needs to review these documents.
5. Kenitzer e-mails. Mr. Kenitzer debriefed with the government on October 5, 2012, regarding this case, and provided on that date a CD of items he organized from his computer. The government has produced the materials on the CD provided by Mr. Kenitzer; Also on October 5, 2012, Mr. Kenitzer produced to the government hundreds of pages of e-mail relating to his efforts to assist the receiver in tracing and recovering funds. As these materials constitute Jencks information, the government has produced those e-mails.
6. Sherrod hard drive. During a recent government interview with Cindi Sherrod, she provided a hard drive from a computer at EIMT. The government will provide an image of the drive upon defense request and provision of adequate media for storage of the image.
7. Publicly available documents. A civil case has been filed by the SEC and the publicly available documents filed there, including Receivers' reports and declarations from potential witnesses in the criminal case need to be obtained and reviewed.
The defense will still need to perform in the next several weeks these functions in addition to other preparation for trial, which includes but is not limited to witness investigation, review of extensive government discovery, and legal research.
Based upon the grounds set forth in this unopposed motion, the government agrees with the defendant that the defendant has set forth appropriate grounds such that time under the Speedy Trial Act from the date this stipulation is lodged, through the new date for trial, March 4, 2013 should be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (H)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T4 and that there is good cause for the continuance and the exclusion of time, and that the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
DATED: November 20, 2012.Respectfully submitted, MARK J. REICHEL, ESQ. /s/ MARK J. REICHEL Attorney for defendant MARK J. REICHEL
As set forth herein, we do not oppose the defense motion to continue the trial and we agree that there is good cause for the continuance and the exclusion of time, and that the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and we agree that the court should sign the attached Order without the need for a hearing.
BENJAMIN United States Attorney WAGNER DATED: November 20, 2012. /s/MARK J. REICHEL for: JEAN HOBLER Assistant Attorney U.S. Attorney for Plaintiff
IT IS SO ORDERED. For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that there is GOOD CAUSE for the continuance and the exclusion of time, and that the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Time is excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T4.
Judge Senior United States District GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.