Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00400/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00400-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Benard
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CR 05-00400 SI

KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321)

United States Attorney

EUMI CHOI (WVSBN 0722)

Chief, Criminal Division

EDWARD TORPOCO (CSBN 200653)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7071

FAX: (415) 436-7234

Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No.: CR 05-00400 SI

)

Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

) ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

v. ) FROM SPEEDY TRIAL CALCULATION

)

ANDRE BENARD, )

)

 Defendant. )

____________________________________) 

With the agreement of the parties, the Court enters this Order excluding the time period

from February 24, 2006 through March 10, 2006 under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161. The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:

1. The Defendant is in custody serving a pre-existing state sentence of imprisonment. 

The parties appeared before the Court on February 24, 2006 for a status hearing and reported that

they were engaged in plea negotiations. The parties requested March 10, 2006 as a possible

change of plea date. 

2. At the status hearing, the parties also reported that, two days prior to the status

hearing, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion, United States v. Morales-Perez, No. 05-10115 (9th

Cir. Feb. 22, 2006), which will have a direct bearing on the Sentencing Guidelines calculation in

this case. At issue is whether the Defendant’s prior narcotics conviction qualifies as a

Case 3:05-cr-00400-SI Document 32 Filed 03/03/2006 Page 1 of 2
 Case 3:05-cr-00400-SI Document 33 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 2
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 STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CR 05-00400 SI 2

“controlled substance offense” within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. In light of this

precedent, the parties requested time to obtain and review the record of conviction for the

Defendant’s prior narcotics offense. At the parties’ request, the Court excluded the time period

through March 10, 2006 from the Speedy Trial Act calculation based on the need to obtain this

additional discovery. This filing memorializes that exclusion of time.

3. In light of the foregoing facts, the parties stipulate that the failure to grant the

requested exclusion would unreasonably deny the Defendant effective preparation of counsel

taking into account the exercise of due diligence, that the ends of justice would be served by the

Court excluding the proposed time period, and that these ends outweigh the best interest of the

public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A), (B)(iv).

SO STIPULATED.

DATED:__March 2, 2006________ ____/S/ MARK GOLDROSEN_______

MARK GOLDROSEN

Attorney for Defendant Andre Benard

DATED:___March 2, 2006______ _/S/ EDWARD TORPOCO__________

EDWARD TORPOCO

Assistant United States Attorney

In light of the foregoing facts, and with the consent of the parties, the Court hereby orders

that the period from February 24, 2006 through March 10, 2006 be excluded from the Speedy

Trial Act calculation under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A), (B)(iv).

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:___________________ _________________________________

HON. SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cr-00400-SI Document 32 Filed 03/03/2006 Page 2 of 2
 Case 3:05-cr-00400-SI Document 33 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 2