August 29, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
CURTIS DANE SANDERS, and FREDERICK EDWRDS, Defendants.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, TODD D. LERAS, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, California.
MICHAEL D. LONG, Attorney for Defendant, CURTIS SANDERS.
OLAF HEDBERG, Attorney for Defendant, FREDERICK EDWARDS.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY HEARING
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiff United States of America, by and through Asszistant United States Attorney Todd D. Leras, and Attorney Michael D. Long, Counsel for Curtis Dane Sanders, and Attorney Olaf Hedberg, Counsel for Defendant Frederick Edwards, that the preliminary hearing scheduled for July August 30, 2013, be continued to September 13, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.
A previous request for continuance of the preliminary hearing to August 30 had been approved by the parties, but the order approving it was not signed. The assigned prosecutor failed to notice the oversight due to a death in his family. The parties agree that the Court may sign that order nunc pro tunc. As previously indicated in prior continuance requests, defense counsel and government counsel have been working toward pre-indictment resolution of this matter. That process includes the exchange of information and investigation related to, among other things, the criminal histories of both defendants (including the relevant facts of prior drug convictions to determine whether or not they provide the basis for enhanced sentencing), and the relevant estimated guideline calculations applicable to each defendant. The United States has outlined a proposed pre-Indictment resolution for Mr. Edwards. Counsel for Mr. Sanders has requested the government obtain additional information related to his client's prior convictions.
On June 20, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Descamps v. United States , 2013 WL 3064407. Descamps addresses the circumstances under which a sentencing court can determine whether a violent crime or drug-related conviction can serve to enhance a defendant's sentence. The Descamps decision sets forth a more narrow test than the modified categorical approach previously approved under Ninth Circuit authority. The Department of Justice issued guidelines regarding treatment of pending cases following the Descamps decision on July 29, 2013. In light of the new guidelines for treatment of prior convictions, counsel for Mr. Sanders needs additional time to review reports and court documents related to his clients prior convictions to determine if they meet the Descamps guidelines.
Defense counsel and government counsel believe that this exchange of information is beneficial to a potential expedited resolution of charging and sentencing issues presented in the case. In light of the settlement discussions, the recent Descamps decision, the guidelines issued on July 29, and the need to conduct additional investigation, all parties are requesting additional time for attorney preparation.
The government and the defendants agree that the combination of settlement discussions and additional investigation 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 September 13, 2013.
Michael Long and Olaf Hedberg agree to this request and have authorized Assistant United States Attorney Todd D. Leras to sign this stipulation on their behalf.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The preliminary hearing set for August 30, 2013, is continued to September 13, 2013, 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 September 13, 2013. (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T4 (reasonable time to prepare)). The Court further finds, based on the representation of the parties, that the ends of justice served in granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the Defendants and the public in a speedy jury trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.