STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION TO SUPPRESS WIRETAP DEADLINE (FIRST REQUEST)

CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Defendant, Andrew Eloy Lozano, by and through his counsel Paola M. Armeni, Esq., and the Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through counsel Dayle Elieson, United States Attorney, and Cristina D. Silva, David N. Karpel, Christopher Burton and Daniel Schiess, that the motion to suppress wiretaps deadline currently scheduled for September 13, 2018, be vacated (for this Defendant only) and reset to a Forty-Five (45) day deadline.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the deadline for any and all responses to said motions be filed in conjunction with Order Regarding Pretrial Procedure. See LCR 12-1.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the deadline for filing any and all replies to said responses be filed in conjunction with Order Regarding Pretrial Procedure. See LCR 12-1.

This Stipulation is entered into for the following reasons

1. The current pretrial motion to suppress wiretaps deadline is September 13, 2018.

2. Counsel for Mr. Lozano was appointed counsel on August 28, 2018.

3. As of the date of this stipulation, counsel for Mr. Lozano has not received discovery. She is awaiting receipt of it from her client who is working with the detention facility to get it mailed out.

4. Since discovery has not been received, counsel for Mr. Lozano is unable to access the merits of a motion to suppress nor draft the actual motion if such a motion is deemed necessary.

5. Additionally, counsel for Mr. Lozano is currently set to commence two trials United States of America vs. Barbara Stephanie Lizardo, Case No. 2:17-cr-00021-JCM-GWF-4 and Angel Landeros and Amelia Villalba vs. Las Vegs Metropolitan Police Department, et al., Case As a result, counsel for Lozano needs additional time to review the discovery when received and then draft if necessary a motion to suppress.

6. Mr. Andrew Eloy Lozano, has appeared in this case and is in custody and along with the government agrees to a continuance.

7. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay and the denial of this request for a continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.

8. For all the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would be best served by the continuance of the motion to suppress wiretap deadline.

9. This is the first request for an extension of time to file the motion to suppress wiretaps.

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION DEADLINE DATES FOR WIRETAP (FIRST REQUEST)

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND ORDER

Based on the pending Stipulation of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby finds that:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based on the fact that counsel has agreed to a continuance, the Court hereby concludes that:

1. The current pretrial motion to suppress wiretaps deadline is September 13, 2018.

2. Counsel for Mr. Lozano was appointed counsel on August 28, 2018.

3. As of the date of this stipulation, counsel for Mr. Lozano has not received discovery. She is awaiting receipt of it from her client who is working with the detention facility to get it mailed out.

4. Since discovery has not been received, counsel for Mr. Lozano is unable to access the merits of a motion to suppress nor draft the actual motion if such a motion is deemed necessary.

5. Additionally, counsel for Mr. Lozano is currently set to commence two trials United States of America vs. Barbara Stephanie Lizardo, Case No.: 2:17-cr-00021-JCM-GWF-4 and Angel Landeros and Amelia Villalba vs. Las Vegs Metropolitan Police Department, et al., Case No.: 2:14-cv-01525-JCM-CWH on Judge Mahan's September 24, 2018 three week trial stack. As a result, counsel for Lozano needs additional time to review the discovery when received and then draft if necessary a motion to suppress.

6. Mr. Andrew Eloy Lozano, has appeared in this case and is in custody and along with the government agrees to a continuance.

7. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay and the denial of this request for a continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.

8. For all the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would be best served by the continuance of the motion to suppress wiretap deadline.

9. This is the first request for an extension of time to file the motion to suppress wiretaps.

10. The ends of justice are served by granting said continuances and outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendant's right to a speedy trial, since the failure to grant said continuances would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice, as it would deny the parties herein sufficient time, and the opportunity, within which to effectively and thoroughly prepare and file pretrial motions, responses, and replies, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

ORDER

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by and between the parties herein, the deadlines for filing of any and all pretrial motions are hereby due on or before the 29 day of October, 2018.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines for filing of responsive pleadings, are hereby due on or before the 5 day of November, 2018.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines for filing any and all replies to dispositive motions, are hereby due on or before the 9 day of November, 2018.