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 v. Murray

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

May 6, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES MURRAY, Defendant.

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, MARC H. AXELBAUM, (SBN 209855), marc.axelbaum@pillsburylaw.com, ERICA N. TURCIOS (SBN 271655), erica.turcios@pillsburylaw.com, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant, JAMES MURRAY.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONVERTING DATE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REVOKE DETENTION ORDER TO STATUS CONFERENCE

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Defendant JAMES MURRAY ("Defendant"), HEREBY STIPULATE, through their undersigned counsel, as follows:

1. WHEREAS on February 8, 2013, Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James specially appointed Marc H. Axelbaum for the limited purpose of advising Defendant regarding certain conflicts of interest the government had stated in a letter to the Court that Defendant allegedly had with his retained counsel, Garrett J. Zelen (Dkt. 96);

2. WHEREAS on February 27, 2013, the government moved to disqualify Mr. Zelen as counsel for Defendant (Dkt. 99);

3. WHEREAS on March 6, 2013, the Court held a hearing on the Government's motion to disqualify Mr. Zelen;

4. WHEREAS on March 11, 2013, the Court issued a written order disqualifying Mr. Zelen (Dkt. 103, p.9);

5. WHEREAS on March 19, 2013, Magistrate Judge Cousins specially appointed Marc H. Axelbaum for the limited purpose of advising Defendant in completing a Financial Declaration in Support of Request for Attorney Under the Criminal Justice Act ("CJA-23 Form");

6. WHEREAS on April 29, 2013, Judge Cousins found Defendant eligible for appointed counsel and appointed Mr. Axelbaum as Defendant's attorney (Dkt. 107);

7. WHEREAS, Mr. Axelbaum has until recently only been appointed for limited purposes in this case and has accordingly not previously attempted to get fully up to speed on the merits of the matter, including regarding the Defendant's Motion to Revoke Magistrate Judge's Order Revoking Defendant's Release on Bond and for de novo Review of the Order (Dkt. 89, "Motion to Revoke"), which was previously set for hearing on May 8, 2013;

8. WHEREAS Defendant and the government have agreed to convert the May 8, 2013 hearing on the Motion to Revoke to a status conference and continue the hearing on the Motion to Revoke to a date to be set at the May 8 conference;

THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant respectfully request that the Court convert the May 8, 2013 hearing on Defendant's Motion to Revoke to a status conference and continue the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Revoke to a date to be determined at the status conference.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based on good cause shown in the foregoing Stipulation, the Court hereby converts the hearing on the Motion to Revoke Detention Order ("Motion") set for May 8, 2013, at 2:30 p.m, to a status conference; and (2) continues the hearing on the Motion to a date to be determined at the May 8 status conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.