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

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

Case No. CR 08-0888 MHP

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

HARTLEY M. K. WEST (CABN 191609)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7200

Fax: (415) 436-7234

E-Mail: hartley.west@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

IAN CARL DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA, and

JUAN PAULO DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 08-0888 MHP

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING

TIME FROM APRIL 19 TO JUNE 28, 2010

Defendant IAN CARL DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA, represented by Richard A. Tamor,

defendant JUAN PAULO DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA, represented by Julia Jayne, and the

government, represented by HARTLEY M. K. WEST, Assistant United States Attorney,

appeared before the Court for status on April 19, 2010. 

The defense requested that the matter be continued to June 28, 2010, due to unresolved

matters in the Philippines, and that the intervening time be excluded. Defense counsel advised

the Court that the Philippine government has an extradition request pending for the defendants

arising out of charges related to a plunder case against their father. Counsel further advised that a

Philippine court has taken under submission a settlement agreement pertaining to the defendants’

father and that, if the court accepts the agreement, the Philippine government is expected to

Case 3:08-cr-00888-MHP Document 48 Filed 04/21/10 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

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

Case No. CR 08-0888 MHP -2-

dismiss the charges and extradition request against the defendants. Counsel represented that the

defendants intend to resolve the United States’ charges short of trial, but wish to disclose

information to the United States in plea negotiations, which they feel they cannot do before

resolution of the Philippine case without harming their interests in that case. 

The United States agreed with the factual representations of the defense, but opposed the

continuance on the grounds that (1) the United States case is not required to trail the Philippine

matter, (2) due to the ten continuances thus far, the Speedy Trial clock runs on June 11, 2010,

and (3) there is no further basis to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act.

The Court put the matter over to June 28, 2010, for plea or trial setting. Observing that

the Philippine case constitutes “other proceedings concerning the defendant[s],” which are “not

unrelated” to the above-captioned case, the Court excluded time between April 19 and June 28,

2010. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1). 

DATED: April 19, 2010 __________/s/_________________

RICHARD TAMOR

Attorney for Defendant 

Ian Carl D. Garcia

DATED: April 19, 2010 __________/s/_________________

JULIA JAYNE

Attorney for Defendant 

Juan Paulo D. Garcia

DATED: April 19, 2010 __________/s/_________________

HARTLEY M. K. WEST

Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___________________ ___________________________

HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Judge

4/20/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:08-cr-00888-MHP Document 48 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 2