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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

RICHARD C. CHENG (CSBN 135992)

Assistant U. S. Attorney

150 Almaden Boulevard, 9th Floor

San Jose, California 95113

Telephone: (408) 535-5032

Fax: (408) 535-5066

e-mail: richard.cheng@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Criminal Case No. CR 09-00719-MHP

)

Plaintiff, )

) STIPULATION OF PARTIES

) FOR CONTINUANCE OF

v. ) STATUS HEARING

) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

GREGORY ALEXANDER, )

) San Francisco Venue

Defendant. )

 )

With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of the defendant Gregory

Alexander, the Court enters this order (1) vacating the first motion hearing for the defendant

Gregory Alexander, currently set for April 21, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.; and (2) setting a new motion

hearing for the defendant Gregory Alexander for June 18, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.. The parties agree,

and the Court finds and holds, as follows:

1. The defendant Gregory Alexander was indicted for multiple counts of unauthorized

access of a protected computer and aggravated identity theft on July 15, 2009. 

Mr. Alexander was represented by retained counsel Seth Chazin, and entered not

guilty pleas before Magistrate Trumbull in San Jose, California on July 17, 2009.

Case 3:09-cr-00719-EMC Document 47 Filed 04/22/10 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

On that same day, Mr. Alexander was released on a personal appearance bond of

$100,000 secured by the signatures of two financially responsible adults. He was

thereafter instructed to appear before Judge Whyte in San Jose on August 24, 2009

at 9:00 a.m. for a status hearing.

2. On July 28, 2009, Magistrate Trumbull issued an order appointing the Federal

Public Defender to represent Mr. Alexander. AFPD Lara Vinnard was assigned to

represent Mr. Alexander. ,

3. On July 31, 2009, a Notice of Related Case was filed by AFPD Vinnard, relating

the instant criminal case to an on-going civil matter CV-08-05126-MHP. The

United States did not oppose the request to relate the criminal matter.

4. On August 11, 2009, this Court issued an order relating the criminal case. On that

same date a notice of substitution of counsel was filed designating AFPD Elizabeth

Falk as assigned counsel to Mr. Alexander.

5. On August 11, 2009, pursuant to the Order Relating Case, Judge Whyte and Judge

Magistrate Seeborg was no longer assigned to the criminal matter and all dates

were previously set were ordered vacated.

6. On January 25, 2010, this Court issued an order at the request of the defense and

with the agreement of the United States, amending the briefing schedule for pretrial motions, to include a motions due date of March 1, 2010. 

7. The defense thereafter filed three separate pre-trial motions, to include a motion for

a Bill of Particulars filed on March 1, 2010, and Motion for Discovery of All

Communications between the Government and Subpoenaed Parties; and Motion for

Dismissal of Aggravated Identity Theft Charge, both filed on March 2, 2010. 

8. In light of the fact the factual inquiries and allegations contained in the defendant’s

moving papers, it has been necessary to enlist the assistance and expertise of the

investigating agent Kyle Haynes, United States Secret Service. Agent Haynes

however has been difficult to impossible to reach, having been consistently

assigned to a number of protection assignments to include the King of Jordan,

Case 3:09-cr-00719-EMC Document 47 Filed 04/22/10 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

protective duties of a number of heads of state at the Conference of Nuclear

Nations in Washington, D.C., and a extended detail to the United States Secret

Service offices in the United Kingdom. I have received a e-mail from Agent

Haynes, who indicates that he will be returning to from London on June 14, 2010.

Because Agent Haynes is a necessary witness to the pre-trial motions, the

Government has requested the motion hearing date be continued to a date available

to both to the defendant, defense counsel and to the Court.

9. Further, pursuant to the request of the defense counsel, counsel for the United

States will file an signed declaration from Agent Haynes regarding the factual

inquires made within the defendant’s moving papers. 

10. The parties, including defendant Gregory Alexander agree to a waiver of time for

the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act and agree that the period of time between

April 21, 2010 through June 18, 2010 may be excluded in light of the need for

additional time for continuity of counsel and adequate defense preparation.

SO STIPULATED. JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

DATED: 

RICHARD C. CHENG

Assistant U.S. Attorney

DATED: __________ _______________________________

ELIZABETH FALK

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:09-cr-00719-EMC Document 47 Filed 04/22/10 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Criminal Case No. CR 09-00719-MHP

)

Plaintiff, )

) [PROPOSED] ORDER

)

v. )

)

GREGORY ALEXANDER, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

For the reasons stated in the parties Stipulation To Continue Sentencing, and for good cause

shown, the Court vacates the April 21, 2010 motions hearing date with respect to the defendant

Gregory Alexander, and sets a new pre-trial motions hearing date of June 18, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.

Further, based upon the representation of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court

finds that failing to exclude the time between April 21, 2010 and June 18, 2010 would

unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel and would deny counsel the reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the time

between April 21, 2010 and June 18, 2010 from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh

the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

Case 3:09-cr-00719-EMC Document 47 Filed 04/22/10 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

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time between April 21, 2010 and June 18,

2010 shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)

and (B)(iv). 

DATED: 

HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Judge

4/22/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

U

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00719-EMC Document 47 Filed 04/22/10 Page 5 of 5