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. Arturo Gonzalez-Moran

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


November 26, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARTURO GONZALEZ-MORAN, AND GILBERTO LORENZO-LUVIO DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney MICHAEL D. McCOY Assistant U.S. Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2798

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY HEARING

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN Assistant United States Attorney Michael D. McCoy, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Arturo Gonzalez-Moran, by and through his counsel Benjamin Galloway, and defendant Gilberto Lorenzo-Luvio, by and through his counsel Dina Santos, that good cause exists to continue the preliminary hearing currently set for November 27, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. to December 7, 2012, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d).

On November 13, 2012, defendant Gonzalez-Moran and defendant Lorenzo-Luvio were charged by Criminal Complaint with knowingly and intentionally possessing with the intent to distribute one or more kilograms of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin, a Schedule I Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On that same day, both defendants were arrested and appeared in front of Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd for their initial appearance. At the initial appearance, Magistrate Judge Drozd set the preliminary hearing for November 27, 2012. The thirty period for filing an information or indictment in this matter, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), runs on December 13, 2012.

The Government expects to be able to provide the defendants with an initial production of discovery within the next 10 days. Once this initial production is provided, all parties will need time to review the discovery with their clients and prepare for the preliminary hearing. The parties may also need time to consider a pre-indictment resolution of this matter. Because of this, good cause exists to extend the time for the preliminary hearing within the meaning of Rule 5.1(d).

The government and defendants agree that the combination of pending discovery production, attorney preparation, and consideration of a possible pre-indictment resolution to this matter constitute good cause to extend the time for preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d), as well as under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). This exclusion of time includes the period up to and including December 7, 2012.

Benjamin Galloway and Dina Santos both agree to this request and have authorized Assistant United States Attorney Michael D. McCoy to sign this stipulation on his behalf.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The preliminary hearing set for November 27, 2012, is continued to December 7, 2012, at 2:00 p.m.

2. Based on the stipulations and representations of the parties, the Court finds good cause to extend the time for the preliminary hearing, and time is excluded up to and including December 7, 2012. (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T4 (reasonable time to prepare)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121126

© 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.