Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

USA v. Tovar, 2:11-CR-296 JAM. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20171129858 Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 27, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VACATE TRIAL DATE AND EXCLUDE TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . The United States of America, by and through its attorney of record, Assistant United States Attorney BRIAN A. FOGERTY, and defendants Ruben Rodriguez and Jaime Mayorga, both individually and by and through their respective counsel of record, MICHAEL LONG and RON PETERS, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On October 3, 2017, the Court set this case for a jury trial to begin on
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VACATE TRIAL DATE AND EXCLUDE TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

The United States of America, by and through its attorney of record, Assistant United States Attorney BRIAN A. FOGERTY, and defendants Ruben Rodriguez and Jaime Mayorga, both individually and by and through their respective counsel of record, MICHAEL LONG and RON PETERS, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. On October 3, 2017, the Court set this case for a jury trial to begin on February 12, 2018. ECF No. 642.

2. On October 19, 2017, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 646.

3. The defendants subsequently filed notices of appeal, initiating interlocutory appeals of the Court's order denying the motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 651 and 657. The defendants' respective appeals have been docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and assigned case numbers 17-10452 and 17-10456. The Court of Appeals has entered orders setting briefing schedules for the two appeals, both of which extend into February 2018.

4. As a result of the pending interlocutory appeals, the parties request that the Court: (1) vacate the February 12, 2018, trial date; (2) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(C) and Local Code D, find that time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from the dates on which the defendants filed their respective notices of appeal, to the date on which the Court of Appeals issues a mandate; and (3) order the parties to appear for a status conference as soon as possible following the issuance of a mandate by the Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the parties' stipulation in its entirety as its order. The Court vacates the February 12, 2018, trial date. The Court also specifically finds that time is excluded, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(C) and Local Code D, as a result of defendants Ruben Rodriguez's and Jaime Mayorga's interlocutory appeal of the Court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. The exclusion of time on that basis begins on the date of the defendants' respective notices of appeal, and the exclusion shall continue until the issuance of a mandate by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court further orders that it will hold a status conference regarding defendants Ruben Rodriguez and Jaime Mayorga as soon as possible following the issuance of a mandate.

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