Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. HOFFMAN, 2:12-cr-0309-JAM. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140328936 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Nathan V. HOFFMAN, by and through his counsel Robert Helfend, defendant Hung NGUYEN, by and through his counsel Donald M. Re, defendant Steve MARCUS, by and through his counsel Donald M. Heller, and defendant Brook MURPHY, by and through his counsel John Balazs,
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Nathan V. HOFFMAN, by and through his counsel Robert Helfend, defendant Hung NGUYEN, by and through his counsel Donald M. Re, defendant Steve MARCUS, by and through his counsel Donald M. Heller, and defendant Brook MURPHY, by and through his counsel John Balazs, that the status conference set for April 1, 2014 at 9:30 a.m., be continued to May 20, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. All remaining defendants are out of custody.

In addition, the parties stipulate and agree that time should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. On or about September 12, 2013, the government provided more than 2,000 pages of additional discovery to a third party discovery service for copying by the defense. At the same time, the government provided notice that significant additional, privacy-protected discovery is available for viewing at the U.S. Attorney's Office. This discovery is in addition to more than 5,000 pages of previously provided materials, as well as video and audio materials. As a result, counsel for each defendant needs additional time to review the voluminous materials in preparing a defense. Counsel have also begun researching and preparing motions but need additional time to prepare.

The discoverable material spans four search warrants served at locations in Southern California and seven search warrants from seven sites in Northern California. The underlying Criminal Complaint in this case is more than 50 pages and incorporates an even longer affidavit from a previously-executed search warrant related to defendant HOFFMAN. In addition, this case is directly related to pending cases charging more than ten defendants in the Eastern District of California: United States v. Ebyam, no. 2:11-cr-00275 JAM, and United States v. Ebyam, et al., no. 2:11-cr-00276 JAM. As a result, each of the defendants agrees that a continuance of the status conference is appropriate before a motions schedule is set.

Counsel further stipulate that an exclusion of time from April 1, 2014 to May 20, 2014, is appropriate under the Speedy Trial Act because of defense counsel's need to review the discovery, investigate, prepare motions, and prepare a defense for trial. In addition, each defendant's counsel stipulates that this matter is "complex" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) (Local Code T2) because of the voluminous discovery, the complexity and unusual nature of the underlying conspiracy, and the pending indicted defendants in two related cases. As a result, counsel for all parties stipulate the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time and outweigh each defendant's interest in a speedy trial, as well as the public's interest in a speedy trial, so that counsel for each defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(ii) & (iv).

ORDER

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

1. The status conference set for April 1, 2014, at 9:45 a.m. is vacated;

2. A new status conference is set for May 20, 2014, at 9:45 a.m.; and

3. Based upon the above representation and stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and each defendant in a speedy trial. The Court further finds that the requested continuance is needed for defense preparation and that this case is complex and unusual because of the voluminous discovery supporting the charges, the unique drug conspiracy in the case, and the large number of pending indicted defendants in two related cases, United States v. Ebyam, No. 2:11-cr-00275 JAM, and United States v. Ebyam et al., No. 2:11-cr-00276 JAM. Accordingly, time under the Speedy Trial Act shall also be excluded through May 20, 2014, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(ii) & (iv) (Local Codes T2 & T4).

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