Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00168/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00168-0/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

[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

[PROPOSED] ORDER FINDING

EXCLUDABLE TIME

UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

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

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

defendant was represented by retained counsel Marcia Silver, and the United States was

represented by Assistant United States Attorney Susan Badger. The parties advised the

Court that the defendant’s first appearance in this district in the above-captioned case

took place before Magistrate Judge Larson on April 10, 2006. At that time, the defendant

stated that he was in the process of retaining counsel and asked for additional time within

which to do so. The defendant was not arraigned on the charges in the indictment and did

Case 3:06-cr-00168-MHP Document 9 Filed 05/18/06 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

[PROP.] ORDER

CR 06 0168 MHP 2

not enter a plea. The matter was continued to April 24, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. before

Magistrate Larson for identification of counsel and arraignment, and to April 24, 2006 at

10:00 a.m. before this Court for initial appearance. This Court subsequently continued

the hearing to May 1, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. As a result, the appearance before the

magistrate was also continued to May 1. On May 1, 2006, before proceeding to this

Court, the defendant appeared before Magistrate Judge Laporte for identification of

retained counsel. 

At the May 1 appearance before this Court, the parties jointly requested that the

matter be 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. Government

counsel advised that the discovery would constitute approximately one banker’s box of

documentary materials. The Court granted the parties’ motion and continued the matter

to July 3, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for status. Defendant’s appearance at that hearing was

waived due to the fact that he resides in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The parties also jointly requested that the time from May 1, 2006 to July 3, 2006

be excluded from the time requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. 

Government counsel advised the Court that the case is not complex, as defined under 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). However, the discovery is substantial and the charges involve

a scheme to defraud and twenty-nine separate wire communications in furtherance of the

fraud. Defense counsel also advised that her co-counsel, Stephen Shaiken, will be

unavailable for a portion of the time between May 1 and July 3. Accordingly, the

defendant requested reasonable time, taking into account due diligence, necessary for

review of discovery and case preparation, and to allow for continuity of counsel. The

parties asked that the time between May 1, 2006 and July 3, 2006 be excluded pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(i) and (ii). 

Upon the request of the parties, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that the time between May 1, 2006 and July 3, 2006 is excluded from the

Case 3:06-cr-00168-MHP Document 9 Filed 05/18/06 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

[PROP.] ORDER

CR 06 0168 MHP 3

time requirements of the Speedy Trial Act in order to provide the defendant continuity of

counsel and adequate time for effective preparation, taking into account due diligence. 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Judge

May 17, 2006

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:06-cr-00168-MHP Document 9 Filed 05/18/06 Page 3 of 3