Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. SOTO, 3:13-mj-00003 CMK. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130506477 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 25, 2013
Latest Update: Jan. 25, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Olusere Olowoyeye, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Benjamin Soto, by and through his counsel Chris Cosca, Esq., and defendant Joaquin Fernando Soto, by and through his counsel Olaf Hedberg, Esq., that good cause exists to extend the preliminary hearing currently set for Jan
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Olusere Olowoyeye, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Benjamin Soto, by and through his counsel Chris Cosca, Esq., and defendant Joaquin Fernando Soto, by and through his counsel Olaf Hedberg, Esq., that good cause exists to extend the preliminary hearing currently set for January 28, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. to February 7, 2013, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 (d).

Good cause exists to extend the time for the preliminary hearing within meaning of Rule 5.1(d) because the defendants have requested initial production of discovery, including visual images from the narcotics trafficking indicia alleged in the Criminal Complaint. Moreover, the government has recently provided initial discovery, including a number of different reports from separate law enforcement agencies. Defense counsel will need additional time to review these documents to prepare for the preliminary hearing. For these reasons, the defendants agree that a continuance of the preliminary hearing date will not prejudice them.

The parties further stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding time from January 28, 2012, to February 7, 2013, so that counsel for the defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (B) (iv). Specifically, the defense agrees that it needs additional time to continue discussions with the government regarding resolution of the case against these defendants, review the discovery requested in the case, effectively evaluate the posture of the case and potentially prepare for trial, and conduct further investigation into mitigation of the defendant's federal sentencing exposure in this case and the forthcoming petition for violations of supervised release. Id.

For these reasons, the defendants, defense counsel, and the government stipulate and agree that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (A); Local Code T4.

ORDER

Based upon the representations by counsel and the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court finds good cause to extend the Preliminary Hearing in United States v. Benjamin Soto and Joaquin Fernando Soto, Case No. 3:13-mj-00003 CMK, from January 28, 2013, to February 7, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d);

2. Based upon the representations and stipulation of the parties, the court finds that the time exclusion under 18 U.S.C. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (A) and Local Code T4 applies and the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial based upon the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (B) (iv). Accordingly, time under the Speedy Trial Act shall be excluded from from January 28, 2013, up to and including February 7, 2013.

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