United Statesv.Huitron

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAApr 18, 2012
CR.NO.S.-10-162-JAM (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2012)

CR.NO.S.-10-162-JAM

04-18-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, v. MIGUEL CASTELLANOS HUITRON, et al., DEFENDANTS.

JAMES R. GREINER, ESQ. CALIFORNIA STATE BARNUMBER 123357 LAW OFFICES OF JAMES R. GREINER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT ALEJANDRO CISNEROS ROMERO


JAMES R. GREINER, ESQ.


CALIFORNIA STATE BARNUMBER 123357


LAW OFFICES OF JAMES R. GREINER


ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT


ALEJANDRO CISNEROS ROMERO


AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE STATUS CONFERENCE TO TUESDAY MAY 15, 2012


PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION

The parties to this litigation, the Unites States of America, represented by Assistant United States Attorney, Mr. Heiko Coppola, and the defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants): 1) Ignacio Hernandez, represented by his attorney Mr. Robert L. Forkner; 2) Jairo Zapien represented by his attorney Mr. Douglas J. Beevers; 3) Fernando Madrigal represented by his attorney Mr. Michael B. Bigelow; 4) Rafael Emilio Gonzalez Juarbe represented by his attorney Ms. Steve E. Teich; 5) Cerjio Arturo Zepeda represented by his attorney Mr. John E. Virga; 6) Michelle Ernestina Lucero represented by her attorney Mr. Hayes H. Gable, III; 7) Mario Nunez, Sr. represented by his attorney Mr. Ronald J. Peters; 8) Justin Haynes represented by his attorney Mr. David D. Fischer; 9) David Hernandez represented by his attorney Mr. Danny D. Brace, Jr.; and 10) Alejandro Cisneros Romero represented by his attorney, Mr. James R. Greiner, hereby agree and stipulate that the current date for the status conference in this case, Tuesday, May 1, 2012, can be vacated and can be rescheduled for, Tuesday, May 15, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom #6, before the Honorable United States District Court Judge, John A. Mendez..

Further, all of the parties, the United States of America and all of the defendants as stated above, hereby agree and stipulate that time under the speedy trial Act can be excluded under Title 18 section 3161(h)(7)(A), with the Court finding that the ends of justice in granting this continuance outweigh the public and all of the defendants right to a speedy trial and pursuant to Title 18 section 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), corresponding to Local code T-2 (the complexity of the case), the Court finds that due to the complex nature of this case due to the number of defendants and complex legal issues and volume of discovery in the case, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and pursuant to Title 18 section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv)and Local Code T-4 (to allow counsel time to prepare), the Court finds that granting this continuance would allow defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of reasonable diligence.

The Court's Courtroom deputy, Mr. Harry Vine, was contacted to ensure the Court was available on Tuesday, May 15, 2012, and the Court is available. There are no motion schedule dates set in the case. There is no trial date set in the case.

The parties agree and stipulate that the following facts support the granting of this continuance:

1- The number of defendants, ten (10)

2- the amount of discovery in excess of 4,000 pages hard copies as well as eight (8) CD's of information, the four (4) live wire taps in this case with additional discovery regarding the four (4) live wire taps forthcoming;

3-the reasonable and adequate amount of time required by the defense to review and investigate the discovery in this case supports the continuance;

4- the reasonable and necessary time needed by defense counsel to research potential legal issues for the filing of potential motions in this case, including but not limited to potentially a wire tap motion, and motion to suppress;

TIME EXCLUDED UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

As set forth herein, the parties agree and stipulate that time under the Speedy Trial Act can be excluded from Tuesday, May1, 2012, to and including Tuesday, May 15, 2012, for all of the reasons stated herein which include that time under the speedy trial Act can be excluded under Title 18 section 3161(h)(7)(A), with the Court finding that the ends of justice in granting this continuance outweigh the public and all of the defendants right to a speedy trial and pursuant to Title 18 section 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), corresponding to Local code T-2 (the complexity of the case), the Court finds that due to the complex nature of this case due to the number of defendants and complex legal issues and volume of discovery in the case, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and pursuant to Title 18 section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv)and Local Code T-4 (to allow counsel time to prepare), the Court finds that granting this continuance would allow defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of reasonable diligence.

Finally, James R. Greiner has been authorized by all counsel to sign this stipulation for each of the respective parties.

Respectfully submitted:

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER


UNITED STATES ATTORNEY


___________________________


Heiko Coppola


ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY


ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF


___________________________


Robert L. Forkner


Attorney for Defendant


Ignacio Hernandez


___________________________


Douglas J. Beevers


Attorney for Defendant


Jairo Zapien


___________________________


Michael B. Bigelow


Attorney for Defendant Fernando Madrigal


___________________________


Steve E. Teich


Attorney for Defendant


Rafael Emilio Gonzalez Juarbe


___________________________


John E. Virga


Attorney for Defendant Cerjio Arturo Zepeda


___________________________


Hayes H. Gable, III


Attorney for Defendant Michelle Ernestina Lucero


Ronald J. Peters


Attorney for Defendant Mario Nunez, Sr.


___________________________


David D. Fischer


Attorney for Defendant Justin Haynes


___________________________


Danny D. Brace, Jr.


Attorney for Defendant


David Hernandez


___________________________


James R. Greiner


Attorney for Defendant


Alejandro Cisneros Romero


ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, reviewed the record in this case and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation and agreement of the parties in its entirety as its order.

The Court specifically finds pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(A), the ends of justice in granting this motion to continue the status conference from Tuesday, May 1, 2012 to Tuesday, May 15, 2012, outweigh the best interests of the public and each of the defendants in this case in a speedy trial.

Further, the Court specifically finds based upon all of the facts set forth herein by the parties and the agreements and stipulations of the parties set forth herein, which the Court adopts as its own, that pursuant to Title 18 section 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), corresponding to Local code T-2 (the complexity of the case), the Court finds that due to the complex nature of this case due to the number of defendants and complex legal issues and volume of discovery in the case, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and pursuant to Title 18 section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv)and Local Code T-4 (to allow counsel time to prepare), the Court finds that granting this continuance would allow defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of reasonable diligence.

Further, the Court orders that the time from Tuesday, May 1, 2012, to and including Tuesday, May 15, 2012, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), and Local Codes T2 (unusual and complex case) and T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare).

It is further ordered that the Tuesday, May 1, 2012, status conference shall be continued until Tuesday, May 15, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________


HONORABLE JUDGE JOHN A. MENDEZ


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE