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

CR 3-05-70262 JL 1

KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321)

United States Attorney

EUMI L. CHOI (WVSBN 0722)

Chief, Criminal Division

DENEE A. DILUIGI (COSBN 35082)

Special Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7031

Fax: (415) 436-7234

Email: Denee.DiLuigi@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZIBU GAO et al (BRANDY DOUGLASS),

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 3-05-70262 JL

STIPULATION CONTINUING DATE OF

PRELIMINARY HEARING OR

ARRAIGNMENT AND EXCLUDING

TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(A)) AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER

On June 3, 2005, the parties in this case appeared before the Court and Ms. Douglass waived

her right to a preliminary hearing or arraignment within twenty days of her initial appearance. 

Based on Ms. Douglass’ waiver, the parties scheduled the next appearance in this matter for June

30, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge James for a preliminary hearing or arraignment.

The parties request this continuance on the grounds that: (1) the United States has not yet

provided all relevant discovery related to Ms. Douglass; (2) Once discovery is provided to

counsel for Ms. Douglass, he will require adequate time to review this discovery and further

discuss it with Ms. Douglass; (3) the United States and counsel for Ms. Douglass are exchanging

Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 51 Filed 07/06/05 Page 1 of 3
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

CR 3-05-70262 JL 2

information that may have an impact Ms. Douglass’s disposition; and (4) counsel for Ms.

Douglass believes that postponing the preliminary hearing is in Ms. Douglass’ best interest, and

that it is not in his client’s interest for the United States to indict the case before the June 30,

2005 preliminary hearing date. The parties agree that the requested continuance is necessary for

continuity of defense counsel and effective preparation of defense counsel. 

The parties stipulate and agree that the above-stated reasons constitute good cause to support

a continuance under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. § 3060.

The parties also stipulate and agree that the stated reasons support a continuance of the

preliminary hearing or arraignment date under Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3161(b)

and 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) and that the failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the

defendant continuity of counsel and deny counsel for the defense the reasonable time necessary

for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: 6/20/05 /S/ Denee A. DiLuigi

DENEE A. DILUIGI

Special Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: 6/28/05 /S/ Geoff Rotwein

GEOFF ROTWEIN

Attorney for Ms. Douglass

O R D E R

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that good cause is shown and concludes that the

continuance is proper under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. §

3060.

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that an exclusion of time between June 3, 2005 and June

30, 2005, is warranted under the Speedy Trial Act because a failure to grant the continuance 

would deny the defendant continuity of counsel and would unreasonably deny defense counsel

and the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of

Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 51 Filed 07/06/05 Page 2 of 3
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

CR 3-05-70262 JL 3

due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). The Court finds that the ends of justice served by

excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial and in the prompt disposition of criminal cases. Id. § 3161(h)(A). 

The Court, therefore, concludes that this exclusion of time is proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

The defendant is HEREBY ORDERED to appear before this Court on June 30, 2005 at 9:30

a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 6/29/05 /s/

NANDOR VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge 

7/6/05

Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 51 Filed 07/06/05 Page 3 of 3