IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 2, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ROBERTO URBINA GONZALEZ, EVERARDO IBARRA REGALADO, CORINA DOMINGUEZ
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
The Law Office of Stan Kubochi 555 University Ave., Suite 270 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone (916) 444-5678 Fax (916) 444-3364 Attorney for Defendant: Corina Dominguez
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE Date: May 3, 2013 Time: 9:00 a.m. Honorable Garland E. Burrell Jr.
IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States Attorney through its undersigned counsel, Nicholas Fogg and Jill Thomas, together with counsel for Defendants, Roberto Urbina Gonzalez represented by Douglas Beevers, Everardo Ibarra Regalado represented by Toni Carbone, and Corina Dominguez represented by Stan Kubochi, that the status conference presently set for Friday, May 3, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Garland E. Burrell Jr., be continued to June 28, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. Further, it is requested that the current court date of May 3, 2013 be vacated.
Counsel for the United States Attorney and the attorneys for Defendants hereby stipulate as follows:
1. The Court has previously continued this matter for May 3rd for status conference.
2. By this stipulation, the parties agree to continue the status conference to June 28, 2013 and to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act under Local Code, T4.
3. The parties stipulate and request the Court to find the following in support of the request for continuance:
a. The government has produced in excess of 1,400 pages of discovery to date which includes reports from law enforcement, recorded conversations, and witness interviews.
b. Counsel for the defense request additional time to review the discovery as the defendants speak Spanish and counsel has been required to translate the investigation of law enforcement.
c. Previously, all parties had stipulated to a pre-plea investigation by the Probation Department of factors such as the number of illegal aliens that were harbored which constitutes an aggravating, sentencing factor. In essence, the stipulation requesting a pre-plea investigation by the Probation Department would advise counsel as to the scope of the criminal enterprise, the numbers of illegal aliens involved, and the specific roles of the defendants. Counsel has been informed by the Probation Department that additional time is required to complete the investigation and the submission of a report.
d. Counsel for defendants believe that a denial of the request for a continuance will deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of the case. Counsel stipulate that due diligence has been exercised in the preparation of the case; however, additional factors must be determined and fully discussed with their respective clients.
e. The government does not object to the continuance.
f. Counsel stipulate that the interests of justice would be served by a continuance as the bases of the request outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a trial within the prescriptions of the Speedy Trial Act. For purposes of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S. C., section 3161, et seq., the time period of the continuance is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S. C. section 3161(h)(7)(A, B(iv) [Local Code T4].
g. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.
IT IS SO STIPULATED:
Having considered the stipulation of the parties and finding Good Cause, the Court adopts the stipulation of the parties and orders a continuance of the status conference. Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate and timely preparation for pretrial and trial proceedings within the time prescriptions established in 18 U.S.C. section 3161 (the Speedy Trial Act). In addition, the Court specifically finds that a failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable and necessary time for effective preparation of the case. Further, that counsel have exercised due diligence in preparing the case to this point in time. The Court finds that the ends of justice are served by granting the requested continuance and the reasons for the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
The Court orders that the time duration between May 3, 2013 and June 28, 2013 shall be excluded from the computation of time within which the trial of this case must commence as required by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U. S. C., section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii), and Local Code T4. It is ordered that the May 3, 2013 status conference shall be continued to June 28, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.