Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00428/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00428-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bartholomew Joseph Alexis
Defendant
Tommy Tzeman Chow
Defendant
I Ching Chu
Defendant
Theodore Honniball
Defendant
Jeffrey Randall Joe
Defendant
Genaro Valentine Lopez
Defendant
Edgar Allen Sanchez
Defendant
Edwin Gordon Toy
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff
Phat Van Vuong
Defendant
Richard Wong
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

KEVIN V. RYAN (CASBN 118321)

United States Attorney

MARK L. KROTOSKI (CASBN 138549)

Chief, Criminal Division

ANDREW M. SCOBLE (CASBN 124940)

ALEXIS HUNTER (NYSBN 3939824)

Assistant United States Attorneys

450 Golden Gate Ave. 

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7249

Fax: (415) 436-7234

E-Mail: andrew.scoble@usdoj.gov

alexis.hunter@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD WONG,

BARTHOLOMEW JOSEPH ALEXIS,

TOMMY TZEMAN CHOW,

I CHING CHU,

THEODORE HONNIBALL,

JEFFREY RANDALL JOE,

GENARO VALENTINE LOPEZ,

EDGAR ALLEN SANCHEZ,

EDWIN GORDON TOY, and

PHAT VAN VUONG,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.: CR 06-0428 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING

TIME FROM SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

COMPUTATION 

All defendants except Bart Alexis and Edgar Allen Sanchez appeared before the Court on

September 1, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. Bart Alexis and Edgar Allen Sanchez have never been arrested

and are still being sought by the government as fugitives.

Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 74 Filed 10/20/2006 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 78 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME 2

At the hearing, the parties – with the exception of defendant Phat Van Vuong, who

repeated his previous position and objected to a further continuance – jointly requested a

continuance of this case until October 20, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. At that next appearance, the parties

will be expected to discuss a motions hearing and briefing schedule, and to discuss a trial date for

a trial grouping that includes defendant Vuong. 

The parties (with the exception of defendant Vuong) agreed in open Court, with their

attorneys’ concurrence, that this case should be declared legally and factually complex, and that it

is appropriate to exclude from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation the period

from the inception of the case through October 20, 2006. The parties represented that the

underlying investigation pertains to three related prosecutions, all of which stem from the same

wiretap investigation. The parties represented that the three cases in the aggregate involve

voluminous discovery (up to 150,000 pages, taking into account seized computer data), include

wiretap materials which pertain to some defendants in this case, and involve search warrants and

investigations by a number of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Further, this

case encompasses ten defendants. Accordingly, the parties agreed, the entire period from the

inception of this case through and including October 20, 2006, should be excluded from the

otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation, because the legal and factual complexity

renders it unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and for the trial

within the otherwise applicable time limits set forth in the Speedy Trial Act.

Based upon the above-described representations and the parties’ agreement in open

Court, THE COURT FINDS THAT the ends of justice served by granting a continuance from the

inception of this case through and including October 20, 2006 outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendants in a speedy trial, and that the case is so legally and factually complex,

due to the nature of the prosecution (including the volume and range of discovery, and the nature

of the underlying investigation) and the number of defendants, that it is unreasonable to expect

adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and for the trial within the otherwise applicable

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 74 Filed 10/20/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 78 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME 3

time limits set forth in the Speedy Trial Act, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) &

(B)(ii). 

Accordingly, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. This case is continued to October 20, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. for further status,

setting of motions, and setting trial for a trial group which includes defendant Vuong.

2. The period from the inception of this case through and including October

20, 2006 is excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(ii).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

HON. SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 74 Filed 10/20/2006 Page 3 of 3
 Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 78 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 3