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 GOV’T MOT. & [PROP.] ORDER

TO CONTINUE 

MOTION HEARING 

CR 09 0850 VRW 1

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

SUSAN E. BADGER (CSBN 124365)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7200

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PASQUALE IANNETTI, 

 

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09 0850 VRW

GOVERNMENT’S UNOPPOSED

MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CONTINUING MOTION HEARING

AND FOR FINDING OF

EXCLUDABLE TIME

The parties appeared before the Court on January 7, 2010 for status appearance, at

which time defense counsel advised that he intended to file a motion to suppress the

statement that defendant made at the time that the Postal Inspectors executed the search

warrant at his business. The Court scheduled the motion to be heard on March 25, 2010

at 2:00 p.m. The Court also found the time between January 7, 2010 and March 25, 2010

excluded from the time requirements of the Speedy Trial Act based on the complexities of

the case, including the fact that the government is seeking to obtain evidence from law

enforcement authorities in Italy. 

Case 3:09-cr-00850-VRW Document 18 Filed 04/19/10 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

 The Court is unavailable on May 20, 2010. 1

GOV’T MOT. & [PROP.] ORDER

TO CONTINUE 

MOTION HEARING 

CR 09 0850 VRW 2

On March 3, 2010, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order, which

the Court subsequently granted, requesting a continuance of the motions hearing in order

to provide the parties additional time to file the suppression motion and opposition. The

primary reason for this request was that undersigned government counsel had been out of

the office unexpectedly due to her mother’s hospitalization. Government counsel sought

additional time within which to respond to the defendant’s anticipated motion, and the

parties proposed a new motions hearing date on May 13, 2010 and a revised briefing

schedule. The Court granted the request by order filed March 5, 2010.

The defendant filed his motion to suppress on March 19, 2010, as agreed by the

parties. The government’s opposition is due to be filed April 16, 2010, and the

defendant’s reply is due on April 30, 2010.

Government counsel now moves for a brief extension of time within which to file

the government’s opposition. Counsel’s mother was unexpectedly hospitalized again on

April 2, and counsel was out of the office from that time until April 12. Counsel

anticipates having to take off additional time during the week of April 19 in order to

assist her mother at home. Counsel understands and appreciates the need to move

forward with the present case and pending motion. However, counsel needs some

additional time, given recent events, within which to file the government’s opposition. 

Counsel respectfully requests leave to file the government’s response on April 27, 2010. 

Counsel has discussed this matter with defense counsel, who has stated that he and

his client do not have an objection to this extension. The parties discussed providing the

defense with additional time within which to file its reply, and propose filing no later than

May 11, 2010. The parties propose continuing the hearing date from May 13, 2010 to

May 27, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. Counsel has also advised that he and his client have no 1

objection to a continued finding of excludable time in this case, given the pending motion

Case 3:09-cr-00850-VRW Document 18 Filed 04/19/10 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

 Government counsel has previously advised the Court and defendant of its 2

understanding that law enforcement authorities in Italy are in possession of evidence relevant to

the instant case. Since the parties’ last appearance before the Court on this matter, government

counsel has traveled to Milan to meet with the prosecutor and Carabinieri agents who are

working on the Italian portion of this case. The parties reached an informal agreement about

sharing evidence, and government counsel is preparing the formal paperwork for the request. 

GOV’T MOT. & [PROP.] ORDER

TO CONTINUE 

MOTION HEARING 

CR 09 0850 VRW 3

and the complexities raised by the fact that the government is seeking to obtain evidence

from Italy relating to this case. See, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) and (h)(7)(A) & (B). 2

Dated: April 16, 2010 JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

SUSAN E. BADGER

Assistant United States Attorney

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Upon the unopposed motion of the government, and good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion hearing date in the above-captioned case

currently scheduled for May 13, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. is continued to May 27, 2010 at 2:00

p.m. The government will file its opposition to defendant’s motion no later than April 27,

2010, and the defendant will file his reply, if any, no later than May 11, 2010. 

The Court further finds that the time between March 25, 2010 and May 27, 2010 is

excludable from the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act due to the continuing complex

nature of the case, including the need to provide adequate time for the government to

obtain evidence located outside the United States and to provide that evidence to the

defense. In addition, time is properly excluded as a result of delay from the filing of the

///

///

Case 3:09-cr-00850-VRW Document 18 Filed 04/19/10 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 GOV’T MOT. & [PROP.] ORDER

TO CONTINUE 

MOTION HEARING 

CR 09 0850 VRW 4

pretrial motion and the opposition to that motion. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) & (h)(7)(A)

& (B). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

VAUGHN R. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge 

April 19, 2010 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:09-cr-00850-VRW Document 18 Filed 04/19/10 Page 4 of 4