Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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. Ramirez

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

May 29, 2013

NICHOLAS RAMIREZ, et al., Defendants.

JOHN R. MANNING (SBN 220874), ATTORNEY AT LAW, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant FRANK ALIOTO.

MICHAEL B. BIGELOW, Attorney for Defendant Nicholas Ramirez.

MICHAEL L. CHASTAINE, Attorney for Defendant Ung Duong.

MICHAEL D. LONG, Attorney for Defendant Phat Nguyen.

CHRISTOPHER R. COSCA, Attorney for Defendant Justin Nonoguchi.

JAN D. KAROWSKY, Attorney for Defendant Manuel Keith.

DINA L. SANTOS, Attorney for Defendant Tiffany Brown.

SCOTT L. TEDMON, Attorney for Defendant Andre Cawthorne.

Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney, ASON HITT, Assistant U.S. Attorney.


MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.

The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Jason Hitt, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Nicholas Ramirez, Michael B. Bigelow, Esq., counsel for defendant Ung Duong, Michael L. Chastaine, counsel for defendant Phat Nguyen, Michael D. Long, Esq., counsel for defendant Justin Nonoguchi, Christopher R. Cosca, Esq., counsel for defendant Frank Alioto, John R. Manning, Esq., counsel for defendant Manuel Keith, Jan D. Karowsky, Esq., counsel for defendant Tiffany Brown, Dina L. Santos, Esq., and counsel for defendant Andre Cawthorne, Scott L. Tedmon, Esq., hereby stipulate the following:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on May 30, 2013.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until July 18, 2013 and to exclude time between May 30, 2013 and July 18, 2013 under the Local Code T-2 and T-4.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:

a. This case was the product of a lengthy investigation in which wiretaps were utilized on multiple telephones. The government has produced discovery which to date includes over 2, 000 pages containing wiretap applications, periodic reports, and investigative materials. Additionally, the government has provided defense counsel with voluminous wiretap conversations. Given this large volume of discovery, the defense counsel needs additional time to review the discovery and consult with their respective clients.
b. The Government does not object to the continuance.
c. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
d. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) within which trial must commence, the time period of May 30, 2013 to July 18, 2013 inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A)) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local Code T-2 and T-4 because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

4. 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.



In accordance with the foregoing stipulation, IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED. The status conference in this matter is hereby continued to July 18, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7.

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.