Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cr-00361/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cr-00361-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Brown
Defendant
Jose D. Holmes
Defendant
Lonell Lindsey
Defendant
Kelly Miles
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff
Deanna Williams
Defendant

Document Text:

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 1

SUZANNE A. LUBAN

Attorney At Law 

State Bar No. 120629

3758 Grand Ave. #4

Oakland, California 94610

Telephone 510/832-3555

Attorney for Defendant

JOSE D. HOLMES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. CR 10-361-LKK

)

Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND

) ORDER

vs. ) CONTINUING STATUS

) CONFERENCE

JOSE D. HOLMES, et al., )

) Date: November 16, 2010

 Defendants. ) Time: 9:15 a.m.

_________________________________ ) Judge: Lawrence K. Karlton

Defendants Jose D. Holmes, James Brown, Deanna Williams, Lonell Lindsey

and Kelly Miles are currently set to appear before this Court on Tuesday, November

16, 2010 for a status conference. This would be their first appearance before the

district court. All defendants are on pretrial release status. Mr. Miles and Mr.

Lindsey were recently added to the case by superseding indictment, and made their

first appearance before the magistrate judge on November 2, 2010.

This is an identity theft / fraud case. On September 15, 2010, this Court issued

a protective order governing disclosure of discovery in this case. The government

promptly began producing available discovery. The government has made available

to defense counsel a large volume of discovery that has not yet been prepared for

distribution, but which counsel can view in the United States Attorney’s Office and

Case 2:10-cr-00361-KJM Document 55 Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 5
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 2

may request copies of any of those documents. The discovery comprises

documentation underlying many hundreds of alleged transactions. Counsel for the

defendants have begun reviewing the voluminous discovery, and anticipate that a

significant amount of attorney time will be needed to complete this review, especially

for counsel for the two newly added defendants. In addition, Mr. Bigelow (attorney

for Deanna Williams) will be in trial before Judge Shubb in another case on

November 16, 2010, and AUSA Carolyn Delaney will be in Fresno that morning

attending the memorial service for a colleague. As a result, the parties agree that a

further continuance is needed for continuity of counsel and to allow counsel sufficient

time to review the discovery, advise their clients, and for investigation and research. 

All parties are amenable to this continuance. All counsel are available on January 25,

2011. Accordingly, the parties by and through their counsel agree and stipulate that

the hearing currently set for November 16, 2010 shall be continued to January 25,

2011 at 9:15 a.m. for status before this Court. 

The parties further agree that an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act

is called for, because the requested continuance is needed for continuity of counsel

and to allow defense counsel sufficient time to prepare, and that the failure to grant

the continuance requested would unreasonably deny counsel the reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 

The parties stipulate that the interest of justice outweighs the best interest of the

public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Therefore, the parties agree that the Court

shall order that the Speedy Trial clock shall be tolled for the reasons stated above

from November 16, 2010 through January 25, 2011 pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act,

18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). IT IS SO STIPULATED:

DATED: November 11, 2010 /S/ Suzanne A. Luban

SUZANNE A. LUBAN,

Counsel for Defendant Holmes 

Case 2:10-cr-00361-KJM Document 55 Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 5
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 3

DATED: November 11, 2010 /S/ Daniel Horowitz

DANIEL HOROWITZ

Counsel for Defendant Brown 

DATED: November 11, 2010 /S/ Michael Bigelow

MICHAEL BIGELOW

Counsel for Defendant Williams

DATED: November 11, 2010 /S/ Ron Peters

RON PETERS

Counsel for Defendant Miles 

DATED: November 11, 2010 /S/ Kyle Rodger Knapp

KYLE RODGER KNAPP

Counsel for Defendant Lindsey

DATED: November 11, 2010 /S/ Carolyn Delaney 

CAROLYN DELANEY

Assistant United States Attorney

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 2:10-cr-00361-KJM Document 55 Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 5
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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. CR 10-361-LKK

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

vs. ) 

)

JOSE D. HOLMES, et al., )

) Date: November 16, 2010

 Defendants. ) Time: 9:15 a.m.

_________________________________ ) Judge: Lawrence K. Karlton

For Good Cause Shown and pursuant to the stipulation of the government and

defendants Jose D. Holmes, James Brown, and Deanna Williams, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing scheduled for November 16, 2010

is vacated and shall be continued to January 25, 2011 at 9:15 a.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time from November 16, 2010 and

January 25, 2011 shall be excluded in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy

Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Codes T2 and T4 for

adequate preparation of counsel and continuity of counsel. The Court finds that the

ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that the failure to grant the continuance

requested would unreasonably deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for

Case 2:10-cr-00361-KJM Document 55 Filed 11/16/10 Page 4 of 5
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 2

effective preparation, taking into account due diligence, given the need for review of

voluminous discovery and unavailability of two of the lawyers on the date previously

set. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2010

Case 2:10-cr-00361-KJM Document 55 Filed 11/16/10 Page 5 of 5