Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cr-00663/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cr-00663-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Lamar Magee
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 RESCHEDULING MOTIONS

HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME

KEVIN V. RYAN (CASBN 118321)

United States Attorney

MARK L. KROTOSKI (CASBN 138549)

Chief, Criminal Division

GARTH HIRE (CASBN 187330)

Assistant United States Attorney

1301 Clay Street, Suite 340S

Oakland, California 94612-5217

Telephone: (510) 637-3929

Facsimile: (510) 637-3724

E-Mail: Garth.Hire@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES LAMAR MAGEE,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 06-00663 SBA

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER VACATING CURRENT

MOTIONS HEARING AND

RESCHEDULING MOTIONS HEARING

AND EXCLUDING TIME 

OAKLAND VENUE

Plaintiff, by and through its attorney of record, and defendant, by and through his

attorney of record, hereby stipulate and ask the Court to find as follows:

1. On September 28, 2006, a federal grand jury indicted defendant for multiple

counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances (cocaine base and

methamphetamine) in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) and one count

of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of Title 21,

United States Code, Section 924(c). 

2. On November 14, 2006, the Court held a status conference at which time it

established a briefing schedule for defendant’s forthcoming motion to suppress evidence. 

Specifically, the Court required defendant to file his motion by December 22, 2006; that the

Case 4:06-cr-00663-SBA Document 16 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 1 of 5

XXXXXXXX

Case 4:06-cr-00663-SBA Document 17 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 5
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 RESCHEDULING MOTIONS

HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME 2

government file its opposition by January 16, 2007; that the defendant file his reply by January

23, 2007, and that a hearing on defendant’s motion be held at 11:00 a.m. on February 13, 2007. 

For the reasons set forth below, the parties stipulate to continue the time for the filing of the

opposition and reply, as well as the hearing on defendant’s motion, for two weeks.

3. For the reasons set forth below, the parties stipulate to continue the time for the

filing of the opposition and reply, as well as the hearing on defendant’s motion, for two weeks. 

As described in greater detail below, the continuance is necessary because: (1) the parties are

actively engaged in settlement discussions; (2) defendant’s declaration was not filed until

January 7, 2007; (3) one of the government’s witnesses has been unavailable due to his nightshift schedule; and (4) government counsel will be out of the district and out of the country from

February 12 through February 22, 2007.

a. The parties are actively engaged in settlement discussions and are hopeful

they will be able to resolve this case in the next one to two weeks without further briefing and

without a hearing that would unnecessarily consume the Court’s time and resources. 

Specifically, counsel for the defendant and the government have had several discussions about

whether defendant is responsible for the entire amount of narcotics seized from his home on June

16, 2006. Defendant’s counsel has met with defendant to discuss this issue and the parties are in

the process of negotiating a plea agreement.

b. On December 22, 2006, defendant electronically filed a motion to

suppress evidence. Included with that motion was the declaration of Martha Boersch and a

variety of exhibits. As Ms. Boersch later explained in a supplemental declaration filed on

January 9, 2007, the declaration of defendant Magee, upon which defendant’s motion to suppress

is based in part, was inadvertently omitted from defendant’s December 22 filing. Ms. Boersch

included defendant’s declaration with her supplemental declaration and faxed both declarations

to the government on January 8, 2007. The declaration is material to the government’s

preparation of its opposition because in it defendant makes numerous statements which conflict

with the accounts of three Contra Costa County Sheriff’s deputies as contained in their

respective reports.

Case 4:06-cr-00663-SBA Document 16 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 2 of 5
 Case 4:06-cr-00663-SBA Document 17 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 5
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 RESCHEDULING MOTIONS

HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME 3

c. Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Deputy David Hall (whose contact with

defendant resulted in the seizure of cocaine base and methamphetamine from defendant’s

person) was not available to meet with the government from January 8 (when it received

defendant’s declaration) until January 15 (the day before the government’s opposition must be

filed) because he has been assigned to the night-shift (9 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.) at the Martinez

Detention Facility and thus works at night and sleeps during the day. Accordingly, the

government has been unable to meet with him until that time and has not been able to draft its

opposition and Deputy Hall’s declaration until the day before the government’s opposition is

currently due.

d. The hearing on defendant’s motion is currently set for February 13, 2007. 

Subsequent to the scheduling of that hearing, government counsel, Assistant United States

Attorney Garth Hire, was assigned to the position of Chief of the Organized Crime Drug

Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Section of the United States Attorney’s Office for the

Northern District of California. As part of his duties in that new position AUSA Hire is required

to travel to other U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the region to consult with other OCDETF attorneys

and agents. One of those trips (to Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) was

previously scheduled from February 12 through February 22, 2007. This trip involves the

coordination of the schedules of many AUSA’s and federal agents in multiple federal judicial

districts and cannot be rescheduled. Accordingly, AUSA Hire cannot attend the hearing on

defendant’s motion until February 27, 2007.

4. Thus, in order (1) to permit the parties additional time to resolve the case without

the unnecessary expenditure of further judicial or government resources; (2) to allow the

government sufficient time to review defendant’s declaration, consult with Deputy Hall, and file

its opposition to defendant’s motion to suppress; and (3) to reschedule the hearing for a date

when government counsel is available, the parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request that

the Court order as follows:

a. The current filing dates for the government’s opposition and defendant’s

reply, as well as the hearing on defendant’s motion scheduled for February 13, 2007, be vacated.

Case 4:06-cr-00663-SBA Document 16 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 3 of 5
 Case 4:06-cr-00663-SBA Document 17 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 5
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 I hereby attest that I have on file all the holograph signatures for any signatures indicated 1

by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RESCHEDULING MOTIONS

HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME 4

b. The government shall file its opposition to defendant’s motion to suppress

no later than January 30, 2007.

c. The defendant shall file any reply to the government’s opposition no later

than February 6, 2007.

d. The hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress be scheduled for 11:00

a.m. on February 27, 2007.

e. The time period from December 22, 2006, to February 27, 2007, shall be

deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) because that period of delay results

from the filing of a pre-trial motion and encompasses the period of time from the filing of that

motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATE: January 16, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

1

GARTH HIRE

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 /s/ 

MARTHA BOERSCH, ESQ.

Counsel for James Magee

///

///

///

Case 4:06-cr-00663-SBA Document 16 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 4 of 5
 Case 4:06-cr-00663-SBA Document 17 Filed 01/22/07 Page 4 of 5
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 RESCHEDULING MOTIONS

HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME 5

[PROPOSED] ORDER

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THE COURT ADOPTS THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW STIPULATED TO BY THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, IT IS SO

FOUND AND ORDERED THAT: 

1. The currently scheduled February 13, 2007, motions hearing is vacated. A

hearing on defendant’s motion is now scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on February 27, 2007, in

Courtroom 3 of the United States Courthouse in Oakland, California, before the Honorable

Saundra Brown Armstrong, United States District Judge. 

2. The government shall file its opposition to defendant’s motion to suppress no

later than January 30, 2007.

3. The defendant shall file any reply to the government’s opposition no later than

February 6, 2007.

4. The time period from December 22, 2006, to February 27, 2007, shall be deemed

excludable under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) because that period

of delay results from the filing of a pre-trial motion and encompasses the period of time from the

filing of that motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of,

such motion. 

DATED: 

HONORABLE SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cr-00663-SBA Document 16 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 5 of 5

XXXXXXXXX 1/18/07

Case 4:06-cr-00663-SBA Document 17 Filed 01/22/07 Page 5 of 5