Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Torres

United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division

June 23, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY RICHARD TORRES, Defendant.

          STIPULATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR (1) CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE AND (2) FINDINGS OF EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIOD PURSUANT TO SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

          KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California and Assistant United States Attorney Garth Hire, and defendant Anthony Richard Torres (TORRES), by and through his counsel of record, Assistant Federal Public Defender John Paul Reichmuth, hereby stipulate as follows:

         1. On December 14, 2015, the Honorable Donna M. Ryu signed a federal criminal complaint charging defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On February 11, 2016, defendant made his initial appearance and was arraigned on the criminal complaint. On February 11, 2016, defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.

         2. A hearing for arraignment on indictment or information is presently set before this Court at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, June 24, 2016.

         3. The government has produced over 200 pages of discovery relating to defendant's arrest and criminal history. The government and defendant are exploring the potential for a pre-indictment disposition. Counsel for defendant TORRES requires additional time to obtain and review discovery and in light of that discovery to discuss and negotiate a potential pre-indictment disposition for defendant or to file pre-indictment motions.

         4. Thus, counsel for defendant TORRES represents that additional time is necessary to confer with defendant, conduct and complete an independent investigation of the case, conduct and complete additional legal research including for potential pre-indictment and/or pre-trial motions, review the discovery already produced and soon to be produced, as well as potential evidence in the case, and prepare for trial in the event that a pre-indictment resolution does not occur. Defense counsel represents that failure to grant the continuance would deny him reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The parties agree that the requested continuance is not based on congestion of the Court's calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of the attorney for the government or the defense, or failure on the part of the attorney for the government to obtain available witnesses.

         5. For purposes of computing the date under the Speedy Trial Act by which defendant must be charged by indictment or information, the parties agree that the time period of June 24, 2016, to July 12, 2016, inclusive, should be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i) and (h)(7)(B)(iv) because the delay results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request, without government objection, on the basis of the Court's finding that: (i) the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in the filing of an information or indictment within the period specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b); and (ii) failure to grant the continuance would unreasonably deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

         6. Nothing in this stipulation shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods be excluded from the period within which an information or indictment must be filed.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         [PROPOSED] ORDER

         The Court has read and considered the Stipulation Regarding Request for (1) Continuance of Hearing Date and (2) Findings of Excludable Time Period Pursuant to Speedy Trial Act, filed by the parties in this matter. The Court hereby finds that the Stipulation, which this Court incorporates by reference into this Order, demonstrates facts that support a continuance in this matter, and provides good cause for a finding of excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161.

         The Court further finds that: (i) the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in the filing of an information or indictment within the time period set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b); and (ii) failure to grant the continuance would unreasonably deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

         THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN:

         The hearing for arraignment on information or indictment in this matter scheduled for June 24, 2016, is continued to 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 12, 2016, before the Honorable Kandis A. Westmore, United States Magistrate Judge, in Oakland, California. The time period of June 24, 2016, to July 12, 2016, inclusive, is excluded in computing the time within which an information or indictment must be filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b) pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i), and (B)(iv). Nothing in this Order shall preclude a finding that other ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.