Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00186/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00186-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

DAVID B. COUNTRYMAN (CSBN 226995)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11 Floor th

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: 415.436.7303

Facsimile: 415.436.7234

Email: david.countryman@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPROXIMATELY $139,740 IN UNITED

STATES CURRENCY,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 10- 0186 TEH 

STIPULATION TO STAY AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Claimant Noni Alexander, by and through her counsel of record Randy Sue Pollock, and

Claimant Brandon Johnson, by and through his counsel of record Jai Gohel, and Assistant United

States Attorney David Countryman, hereby jointly agree to stay the instant case. 

Claimants Johnson has a related criminal charges pending in Federal District Court for

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania [Case No. 09-cr-00535] and both Johnson and Alexander

have a pending prosecution in Alameda County Superior Court [Case No. 553400A]. Trial in the

Pennsylvania case is currently set for June 28, 2010. Docket No. 10. The currency at issue in

this forfeiture was seized during the arrest in the Alameda County case, which is trailing the 

federal criminal case in Pennsylvania.

Case 3:10-cv-00186-TEH Document 11 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation to Stay 2

The allegations in the present forfeiture complaint are related to the allegations at issue in

the related criminal indictments and, consequently, the parties agree that a stay in the forfeiture

proceeding for 180 days is necessary, because continuation of the forfeiture proceeding will

burden the right of the claimant against self-incrimination in the related criminal cases and will

adversely affect the prosecution of the related criminal case.

IT IS SO STIPULATED: JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

Dated: April 23, 2010 /S/ 

DAVID COUNTRYMAN

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: April 23, 2010 /S/ 

RANDY SUE POLLOCK, ESQ. 

Attorney for Potential Claimant

Noni Alexander

Dated: April 23, 2010 /S/ 

JAI MANHAR GOHEL, ESQ.

Attorney for Potential Claimant

Brandon Johnson

ORDER GRANTING STAY

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Stipulation to Stay, the entire record, and for good

cause shown, it is by the Court on this day of ______________, 2010

ORDERED that the instant case be, and hereby is, STAYED, until _________________,

2010, at ______________________ pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g).

 

HONORABLE THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

26th April October 25 1:30 PM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Case 3:10-cv-00186-TEH Document 11 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 2