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 June 7, 2010, such that there is a need for a

Case 3:09-cr-01124-SI Document 24 Filed 04/23/10 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

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, June 7, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. The parties agree that continuing the case

until June 7, 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 June 7,

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

Id. § 3161(h)(A). 

STIPULATED:

DATED: April 23, 2010 /S/ 

EDWIN PRATHER 

Attorney for JOSE SILVA

DATED: April 23, 2010 /S/ 

GERI LYNN GREEN

Attorney for BLANCA SILVA

Case 3:09-cr-01124-SI Document 24 Filed 04/23/10 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: April 23, 2010 /S/ 

WILLIAM TAGGART, Jr. 

BARBARA N. MORRISON

Attorneys for CHRISTINE ARREGUIN

DATED: April 23, 2010 /S/ 

TIMOTHY J. LUCEY

Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER

For good cause shown, the Court continues the matter until Monday, June 7, 2010, at

10:00 a.m. 

The Court enters this order excluding time from April 26, 2010, up to and including June

7, 2010. Specifically, the parties agree, and the Court finds and holds that such that time should

be excluded until June 7, 2010, and furthermore that failing to grant a continuance until June 7,

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 April 26, 2010, through June 7, 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

4/23/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-01124-SI Document 24 Filed 04/23/10 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 24 Filed 04/23/10 Page 4 of 4