Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Ya Huai Hung, 14-00527-RS. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160721837 Visitors: 27
Filed: Jul. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 20, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF STATUS HEARING AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, 18 U.S.C. 3161 ET. SEQ. RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . All undersigned defense counsel and the Government stipulate to the following. 1. Since the last status conference on May 24, 2016, the following developments have occurred in this case. 2. Defendant Waylen Fong entered a plea of guilty on June 7, 2016, and was sentenced on July 5, 2016. 3. Defendant Allen Fong
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF STATUS HEARING AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 ET. SEQ.

All undersigned defense counsel and the Government stipulate to the following.

1. Since the last status conference on May 24, 2016, the following developments have occurred in this case.

2. Defendant Waylen Fong entered a plea of guilty on June 7, 2016, and was sentenced on July 5, 2016.

3. Defendant Allen Fong entered a plea of guilty on July 5, 2016 and is scheduled to be sentenced on October 25, 2016.

4. Defendants Ya Huai Hung, Robert Chun, Kevin Hartig, Angelina Chuong and Chonthicha Jaemratanasophin have received plea agreements. The plea agreements contain lengthy and detailed statements regarding the alleged factual bases for each defendant's guilt, especially in connection with the money laundering charges. The statements were prepared by the government after reviewing the voluminous discovery, including financial records. Defense counsel, who received plea offers, need additional time to investigate the factual proffers for accuracy. This process entails locating the discovery on which the proffers are based, comparing the proffers with the discovery, and then discussing the accuracy of the proffers with the defendants.

5. Defendants Jie Mu and Laurence Shu Kwan Lee will soon be receiving plea agreements. It has taken the government more time than anticipated to prepare these plea agreements due to the complexity and detail of the factual bases. Defense attorneys for Defendants Mu and Lee will need additional time to review the discovery to determine the accuracy of the factual proffers once the plea agreements are received.

6. Defendants Ya Huai Hung, Jie Mu, Laurence Shu Kwan Lee, Kevin Hartig, Angelina Chuong, and Chonthicha Jaemratanasophin are scheduled for a status conference on July 26, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. Defendant Robert Chun is scheduled for a status conference on August 2, 2016 at 2:30 p.m.

7. Due to the need for defense counsel to investigate the factual proffers in the plea agreements through further review of the voluminous discovery, the parties stipulate and agree that the August 2, 2016 status conference for defendant Robert Chun and the July 26, 2016 status conference for the other defendants identified in paragraph 6 above should be continued to August 30, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., and that the failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

8. The parties further stipulate and agree that the time from July 26, 2016 through August 30, 2016 should be excluded based upon the complexity of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), and on the basis that the ends of justice are served by taking such action which outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial and for effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Upon the parties' stipulation, and GOOD CAUSE appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned matters shall be continued to August 30, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. and that the time from July 26, 2016 through August 30, 2016 shall be excluded in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). The Court finds that (A) the above-captioned matters are complex based upon the nature of the prosecution; (B) failure to grant the continuance would unreasonably deny the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and (C) the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer