Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cr-00218/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cr-00218-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Louis Filter
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

BARTH 

DALY LLP 

Attorneys At Law 

Sacramento, California 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

{00019614} 

Motion to Stay Appeal 1 [Case No. 2:15-CR-00218-KJM]

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

Kresta Nora Daly, SBN 199689 

Berit Lynn Elam, SBN 307389 

BARTH DALY LLP

431 "I" Street, Suite 201 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 440-8600 

Facsimile: (916) 440-9610 

Email: kdaly@barth-daly.com 

Email: belam@barth-daly.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

WILLIAM FILTER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WILLIAM LOUIS FILTER, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 2:15-CR-00218-KJM 

MOTION TO STAY APPEAL

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR STAY OF APPEAL 

I. INTRODUCTION

Mr. Filter moves for a stay of his appeal in this case pending the disposition of his motion 

requesting an extension of time to file a Rule 33 motion and any potential Rule 33 motion. While 

Mr. Filter’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal, a Rule 33 motion should have been filed first based 

on the nature of Mr. Filter’s appellate argument. The undersigned counsel substituted in for trial 

counsel on July 18th and thereafter filed a motion requesting an extension to file the proper Rule 33 

motion. Should the magistrate court grant an extension, the Rule 33 motion could be dispositive of 

Mr. Filter’s appeal. 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:15-cr-00218-KJM Document 63 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 3
BARTH 

DALY LLP 

Attorneys At Law 

Sacramento, California 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

{00019614} 

Motion to Stay Appeal 2 [Case No. 2:15-CR-00218-KJM]

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

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 On October 21, 2015 Mr. Filter was charged with a one count violation of Title 16 United 

States Code section 704(b)(1), Unlawful Taking of a Migratory Bird. On November 5, 2015, the 

government filed a second information charging Mr. Filter with a violation of Title 16 United States 

Code section 704(b)(2), Unlawful Baiting of a Migratory Bird. Magistrate Judge Allison Claire 

declined to sign the government’s proposed order for related cases, and instead ordered the two cases 

be consolidated. 

Mr. Filter was offered a plea agreement to which he initially agreed. Prior counsel failed to 

explain to Mr. Filter that the plea agreement would require him to agree to a hunting ban lasting one 

to three years. When he learned this, Mr. Filter decided not to change his plea. At the hearing where 

his change of plea was cancelled, Mr. Filter’s counsel asked to be removed at Mr. Filter’s request. 

An ex parte hearing between Mr. Filter, his counsel, and Judge Claire was held on the matter. At the 

conclusion of the hearing it was announced defense counsel would remain. 

A two-day jury trial took place in Judge Claire’s court on May 2nd and May 3rd, 2016. At 

the conclusion, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts. Mr. Filter was sentenced on June 

17, 2016 to a five thousand dollar fine and thirty-six months of court probation. As a condition of 

probation, Mr. Filter was prohibited from hunting for a period of three years. After a follow-up 

reminder from Mr. Filter, Mr. Filter’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal on Mr. Filter’s behalf on 

June 30, 2016. Mr. Filter met with the undersigned counsel with the intent to hire a new attorney to 

handle his appeal and the undersigned counsel was substituted in on July 18, 2016. On July 25, 2016, 

the undersigned counsel filed a motion for an extension to file a Rule 33 motion for new trial before 

Judge Claire. (See Case No. 2:15-mj-207-AC, Doc. 68.) 

III. REQUEST FOR STAY 

 Upon speaking with Mr. Filter and reviewing his case, the undersigned counsel determined 

the appropriate course of action was to file a motion for new trial. The fourteen-day deadline for 

filing a motion for new trial had passed prior to the undersigned substituting in on the case, so a 

motion for an extension to file the Rule 33 motion was filed in front of Judge Claire. Due to the 

nature of Rule 33 motions for new trial and the fact that they are typically pursued immediately after 

Case 2:15-cr-00218-KJM Document 63 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 3
BARTH 

DALY LLP 

Attorneys At Law 

Sacramento, California 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

{00019614} 

Motion to Stay Appeal 3 [Case No. 2:15-CR-00218-KJM]

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

trial and before an appeal, they are potentially dispositive of the appeal or may change the proceeding 

upon which the appeal would be based. Mr. Filter would like to preserve his ability to pursue his 

appeal, but because of the potentially dispositive nature of his request for extension and possible Rule 

33 motion, would like to stay his appeal and all related filing deadlines until the litigation on the Rule 

33 matter is complete. 

V. CONCLUSION 

Because the result of his motion for extension to file a Rule 33 motion and possible Rule 33 

motion may be dispositive of his appeal, Mr. Filter respectfully requests a stay of his appeal until his 

motion for extension and any potential Rule 33 motion have been fully litigated. 

Dated: July 26, 2016. Respectfully submitted, 

BARTH DALY LLP

 By /s/ Berit Lynn Elam 

 BERIT LYNN ELAM 

 Attorneys for WILLIAM FILTER 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

O R D E R 

 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING it is so ordered this 15th day of August, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cr-00218-KJM Document 63 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 3