Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00168/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00168-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Napoleon Cruz
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

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

STIP. & [PROP.] ORDER

CR 06 0168 MHP 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAPOLEON CRUZ,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 06 0168 MHP

STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER FINDING

EXCLUDABLE TIME

UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

18 U.S.C. § 3161(b); (h)(8)(A)&(B)(iv)

The parties made their initial appearance before this Court on May 1, 2006. At

that time, the matter was continued to July 3, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in order that the

government could provide discovery, defense counsel and defendant could have

reasonable time to review the discovery, and the parties could discuss further proceedings

in the case. The Court granted the parties’ request for a finding that the time between

May 1, 2006 and July 3, 2006 be excluded from the time requirements of the Speedy Trial

Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 in order to provide the defendant continuity of counsel and

Case 3:06-cr-00168-MHP Document 18 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 4
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

STIP. & [PROP.] ORDER

CR 06 0168 MHP 2

adequate time for effective preparation, taking into account due diligence. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv).

By order of the Court, the July 3 hearing was re-scheduled to July 17, 2006 at

10:00 a.m. Upon the motion and stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, the

Court excluded the time between July 3, 2006 and July 17, 2006 from the time

requirements of the Speedy Trial Act.

The parties appeared before the Court on July 17, 2006, at which time the parties

set the following schedule for motions: motions are to be filed by August 28, 2006;

responses by September 11, 2006; replies by September 18, 2006; and the motions

hearing will be held before this Court at 10:00 a.m. on September 25, 2006. The

defendant indicated that he would be raising discovery motions and a challenge to the

face of the indictment. At that time, the defendant raised motions for discovery of

information about the victim. Because of the unavailability of assigned government

counsel, the Court continued hearing on the discovery issues raised by defendant at the

July 17 hearing until July 27, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. Upon the motion of the parties, the

Court excluded the time between July 17, 2006 and July 27, 2006 due to the unavailability

of government counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv).

The parties appeared before the Court on July 27, 2006 for further hearing on

defendant’s oral motion for discovery. In particular, the defendant moved for discovery

of the address and phone number of the victim, and for information regarding any prior

contacts that the victim or his civil counsel may have had with the FBI before the victim

reported the instant crime to the FBI on September 22, 2003. The Court ordered the

government to provide the contact information regarding the defendant, and to provide by

August 10, 2006 any information about prior contacts with the FBI. Upon the motion of

the parties, the Court found that the time between July 27, 2006 and compliance with the

defendant’s discovery motion on August 10, 2006 was excluded from the time

requirements of the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F).

The parties hereby move and stipulate to the following additional exclusions of

Case 3:06-cr-00168-MHP Document 18 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 4
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

STIP. & [PROP.] ORDER

CR 06 0168 MHP 3

time under the Speedy Trial Act:

First, the parties move for an exclusion of the time between July 27, 2006 and

August 28, 2006 in order to provide the defendant adequate time, taking into account due

diligence, to prepare motions in the instant case. Defense counsel advises the Court that

due to obligations in other cases, as well as some periods of unavailability, such

exclusions will provide reasonable time to research and prepare motions, taking into

account due diligence. 

Second, the parties move for a finding that the time between April 4, 2006, when

defendant made his initial appearance in this case before Magistrate Judge James Larson,

and May 1, 2006, when the defendant made his first appearance with counsel and was

arraigned, is excluded from the time requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). At the first appearance on April 4, 2006, the defendant did not have

counsel and indicated that he wished time to locate and retain counsel. He was not

arraigned on the indictment at that time. Under these circumstances, the parties stipulate

that the time provisions of the Speedy Trial Act did not commence until the defendant

was arraigned on May 1, 2006. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: 8/7/06 KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

SUSAN E. BADGER

Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: 8/2/06 /s/ 

STEPHEN SHAIKEN

Counsel for defendant Napoleon Cruz

Upon the joint stipulation of the parties and for good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED THAT the time between July 27, 2006 and August 28, 2006 is

excluded from the time requirements of the Speedy Trial Act in order to provide the

Case 3:06-cr-00168-MHP Document 18 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 4
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

STIP. & [PROP.] ORDER

CR 06 0168 MHP 4

defendant adequate time for effective preparation of motions, taking into account due

diligence, and in order to provide the government continuity of counsel. 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv). In addition, the Court finds that the time requirements of the

Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1) commenced in this case when the defendant

was arraigned in this Court on May 1, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

U

U

nited States District Judge

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

August 28, 2006

Case 3:06-cr-00168-MHP Document 18 Filed 08/29/06 Page 4 of 4