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 [PROPOSED] ORDER

United States v. Silva 

[CR 09 - 01124 MHP] 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. CR 09 - 01124 MHP

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

) ORDER

)

BLANCA SILVA, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

WHEREAS, the government is in the process of providing discovery to counsel for all 

defendants, and where the discovery consists of extensive loan files and financial records relating

to multiple real estate transactions, such that the matter is considered complex under 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(ii);

WHEREAS, counsel for the defendants will need sufficient time to review the discovery,

in order to effectively prepare for the defense of this matter, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(B)(iv);

WHEREAS, counsel for the parties jointly agree and stipulate that a continuance of this

matter is appropriate given the and the need for effective preparation of counsel and where the

next available date where all counsel are available is April 26, 2010, such that there is a need for

Case 3:09-cr-01124-SI Document 21 Filed 02/26/10 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

United States v. Silva 

[CR 09 - 01124 MHP] 2

a continuance to such date based on continuity of counsel, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(B)(iv);

THEREFORE, the parties mutually and jointly stipulate that the matter should be

continued, based on the complexity of this case, the need for effective preparation of counsel, and

the need for continuity of counsel, and the parties jointly request that the Court continue the

matter until Monday, April 26, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. The parties agree that continuing the case

until April 26, 2010, is necessary, given the complexity of the case, the need for defense counsel

to review and analyze a large amount of discovery, and the need to maintain continuity of

counsel. The parties also agree that failing to grant a continuance would deny counsel for the

defense the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and continuity of counsel, taking

into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 

The parties also agree, and the Court has found previously, that the case involves

government allegations of a complicated fraud scheme with substantial evidence, both paper and

electronic, and that thus “the case is so unusual or so complex, due to . . . the nature of the

prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect

adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits

established” by the Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(7)(ii). 

Finally, the parties agree that the ends of justice served by excluding time until April 26,

2010, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

Id. § 3161(h)(A). 

STIPULATED:

DATED: February 25, 2010 /S/ 

EDWIN PRATHER

Attorney for JOSE SILVA

DATED: February 25, 2010 /S/ 

GERI LYNN GREEN

Attorney for BLANCA SILVA

Case 3:09-cr-01124-SI Document 21 Filed 02/26/10 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

United States v. Silva 

[CR 09 - 01124 MHP] 3

DATED: February 25, 2010 /S/ 

WILLIAM TAGGART, Jr. 

BARBARA N. MORRISON

Attorneys for CHRISTINE ARREGUIN

DATED: February 25, 2010 /S/ 

TIMOTHY J. LUCEY

Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER

For good cause shown, the Court continues the matter until Monday, April 26, 2010, at

10:00 a.m. 

The Court enters this order excluding time from March 1, 2010, up to and including April

26, 2010. Specifically, the parties agree, and the Court finds and holds that such that time should

be excluded until April 26, 2010, and furthermore that failing to grant a continuance until April

26, 2010, would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel, and also would deny

defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the

exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

The parties also agree, and the Court finds and holds, that the case involves government

allegations of a complicated fraud scheme with substantial evidence, both paper and electronic,

and that thus “the case is so unusual or so complex, due to . . . the nature of the prosecution, or

the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate

preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established” by the

Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). 

Finally, the parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, that the ends of justice served by

excluding time from March 1, 2010, through April 26, 2010, outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Id. § 3161(h)(A). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:________________ _______________________________

HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Judge

2/26/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-01124-SI Document 21 Filed 02/26/10 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

United States v. Silva 

[CR 09 - 01124 MHP] 4

Case 3:09-cr-01124-SI Document 21 Filed 02/26/10 Page 4 of 4