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. Chan

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

June 26, 2013


BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, LAUREL J. MONTOYA, Assistant United States Attorneys, Fresno, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff. ALONZO J. GRADFORD Attorney for Defendant Andy Yung Kwong Chan.

SETH P. CHAZIN, Attorney for Defendant John Zhong Xian Huang.

GEORGE SIDDELL, Attorney for Defendant Chiu Chuen Lau.

DORON WEINBERG, Attorney for Defendant Tony Chao Fan Luo.

KIRK MCALLISTER, Attorney for Defendant Michael Chau.

HARRIS B. TABACK, Attorney for Defendant Yao Ming Yu.


ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on July 8, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until October 7, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. and to exclude time between July 8, 2012 and, October 7, 2013 under 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv). Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

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

a. The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately 508 pages of investigative reports and related documents in electronic form as well as approximately 25 CDs of interviews, photographs and video recordings. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b. Offers have been conveyed, counteroffers have been made, and plea agreements have been prepared as to several of the defendants that the parties felt were reasonably likely to result in the resolution.
c. Counsel for defendants need additional time for investigation and preparation. Counsel for defendants are continuing to investigate the matter, evaluate offers and the potential immigration consequences of a plea. Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and resolution, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The parties continue to work toward either resolving the matter or setting a trial date should a resolution of the matter not be reached.
d. The government does not object to the continuance.
e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of July 8, 2013 to October 7, 2013, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) 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 defendants interest 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.



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.