Free Motion to Compel - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 1 of 14

1 GREGORY MURPHY California State Bar No. 245505 2 FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF SAN DIEGO, INC. 225 Broadway, Suite 900 3 San Diego, California 92101-5030 Telephone: (619) 234-8467 4 [email protected] 5 Attorneys for Mr. Alfonso Ramirez-Medina 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 14, 2008, at 9:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as ) CASE NO. 08-cr-2127-W ) Plaintiff, ) DATE: August 14, 2008 ) TIME: 9:00 a.m. ) v. ) NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND ) MOTIONS: ) ALFONSO RAMIREZ-MEDINA, ) (1) TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; AND ) (2) FOR LEAVE TO FILE Defendant. ) FURTHER MOTIONS ) ) __________________________________ ) TO: KAREN P. HEWITT, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, AND REBECCA KANTER, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (HONORABLE THOMAS J. WHELAN)

22 counsel may be heard, the defendant, Alfonso Ramirez-Medina, by and through his counsel, 23 Gregory T. Murphy and Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., will ask this Court to enter an order 24 granting the following motions. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 //

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 2 of 14

1 2

MOTIONS The defendant, Alfonso Ramirez-Medina, by and through his attorneys, Gregory Murphy and

3 Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., pursuant to the United States Constitution, the Federal Rules 4 of Criminal Procedure, and all other applicable statutes, case law and local rules, hereby moves this 5 Court for an order: 6 7 8 1) compelling discovery; and 2) for leave to file further motions. These motions are based upon the instant motions and notice of motions, the attached

9 statement of facts and memorandum of points and authorities, and all other materials that may come 10 to this Court's attention at the time of the hearing on these motions. 11 12 13 Dated: July 10, 2008 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Gregory Murphy GREGORY MURPHY Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. Attorneys for Mr. Ramirez-Medina [email protected]

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 3 of 14

1 GREGORY MURPHY California State Bar No. 245505 2 FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF SAN DIEGO, INC. 225 Broadway, Suite 900 3 San Diego, California 92101-5030 Telephone: (619) 234-8467 4 [email protected] 5 Attorneys for Mr. Ramirez-Medina 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 14 v. 15 ALFONSO RAMIREZ-MEDINA 16 17 18 19 20 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Mr. Ramirez-Medina is a commercial truck driver who was arrested on June 12, 2008 Defendant _________________________________ Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 08-cr-2127-W STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (HONORABLE ALFONSO RAMIREZ-MEDINA)

21 when agents discovered marijuana inside pallets of jalapenos in the trailer he was driving. The 22 government alleges he knowingly and intentionally imported marijuana into the United States. 23 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // To date, the government has produced no discovery in this case.

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 4 of 14

1 2 3

II. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests the following discovery. His request is not limited to those

4 items of which the prosecutor is aware. It includes all discovery listed below that is in the custody, 5 control, care, or knowledge of any "closely related investigative [or other] agencies." See 6 United States v. Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 1989). 7 1. The Defendant's Statements. The government must disclose to Mr. Ramirez-

8 Medina all copies of any written or recorded statements made by Mr. Ramirez-Medina; the substance 9 of any statements made by Mr. Ramirez-Medina that the government intends to offer in evidence at 10 trial; any response by Mr. Ramirez-Medina to interrogation; the substance of any oral statements that 11 the government intends to introduce at trial and any written summaries of Mr. Ramirez-Medina's 12 oral statements contained in the handwritten notes of the government agent; any response to any 13 Miranda warnings that may have been given to Mr. Ramirez-Medina; and any other statements by 14 Mr. Ramirez-Medina. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) and (B). The Advisory Committee Notes and 15 the 1991 amendments to Rule 16 make clear that the government must reveal all Mr. Ramirez16 Medina's statements, whether oral or written, regardless of whether the government intends to make 17 any use of those statements. 18 2. Arrest Reports, Notes and Dispatch Tapes. Mr. Ramirez-Medina also specifically

19 requests that all arrest reports, notes and dispatch or any other tapes that relate to the circumstances 20 surrounding his arrest or any questioning, if such reports have not already been produced in their 21 entirety, be turned over to him. This request includes, but is not limited to, any rough notes, records, 22 reports, transcripts or other documents in which statements of Mr. Ramirez-Medina or any other 23 discoverable material is contained. Mr. Ramirez-Medina includes in this request any redacted 24 portions of the Report of Investigation ("ROI") and any subsequent ROIs that the case agent or any 25 other agent has written. This is all discoverable under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) and (B) and 26 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). See also Loux v. United States, 389 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 27 1968). Arrest reports, investigator's notes, memos from arresting officers, dispatch tapes, sworn 28 statements, and prosecution reports pertaining to Mr. Ramirez-Medina are available under Fed. R. 2

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 5 of 14

1 Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) and (B), Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2 and 12(I). Preservation of rough notes is 2 requested, whether or not the government deems them discoverable. 3 3. Brady Material. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests all documents, statements, agents'

4 reports, and tangible evidence favorable to him on the issue of guilt and/or that affects the credibility 5 of the government's case. Impeachment and exculpatory evidence both fall within Brady's definition 6 of evidence favorable to the accused. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States 7 v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). 8 4. Any Information That May Result in a Lower Sentence. As discussed above, any

9 information that may result in a more favorable sentence must also be disclosed pursuant to Brady, 10 373 U.S. 83. The government must disclose any cooperation or attempted cooperation by Mr. 11 Ramirez-Medina, as well as any information that could affect any base offense level or specific 12 offense characteristic under Chapter Two of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines 13 Manual ("Guidelines"). Also included in this request is any information relevant to a Chapter Three 14 adjustment, a determination of Mr. Ramirez-Medina's criminal history, or any other application of 15 the Guidelines. 16 5. The Defendant's Prior Record. Evidence of a prior record is available under Fed.

17 R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(D). Mr. Ramirez-Medina specifically requests a complete copy of any criminal 18 record. 19 6. Any Proposed 404(b) Evidence. Evidence of prior similar acts is discoverable

20 under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(D) and Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 609. In addition, under Fed. R. 21 Evid. 404(b), "upon request of the accused, the prosecution . . . shall provide reasonable notice in 22 advance of trial . . . of the general nature . . . ." of any evidence the government proposes to introduce 23 under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) at trial. Sufficient notice requires the government to "articulate precisely 24 the evidential hypothesis by which a fact of consequence may be inferred from the other acts 25 evidence." United States v. Mehrmanesh, 689 F.2d 822, 830 (9th Cir. 1982) (emphasis added; 26 internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Brooke, 4 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1993) 27 (reaffirming Mehrmanesh and reversing convictions). 28 // 3

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 6 of 14

1

This includes any "TECS" records (records of prior border crossings) that the government

2 intends to introduce at trial, whether in its case-in-chief, impeachment, or rebuttal. Although there 3 is nothing intrinsically improper about prior border crossings, they are nonetheless subject to 404(b), 4 as they are "other acts" evidence that the government must produce before trial. United States v. 5 Vega, 188 F.3d 1150, 1154-1155 (9th Cir. 1999). Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests that such notice be 6 given three weeks before trial to give the defense time to adequately investigate and prepare for trial. 7 7. Evidence Seized. Evidence seized as a result of any search, either warrantless or

8 with a warrant, is discoverable under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E). 9 8. Request for Preservation of Evidence. The defense specifically requests that all

10 dispatch tapes or any other physical evidence that may be destroyed, lost, or otherwise put out of the 11 possession, custody, or care of the government and that relate to the arrest or the events leading to 12 the arrest in this case be preserved. This request includes, but is not limited to vehicle involved in 13 the case, Mr. Ramirez-Medina's personal effects, the alleged marijuana, and any evidence seized 14 from Mr. Ramirez-Medina or any third party. This request also includes any material or percipient 15 witnesses who might be deported or otherwise likely to become unavailable (e.g. undocumented 16 aliens and transients). Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests that the prosecutor be ordered to question all 17 the agencies and individuals involved in the prosecution and investigation of this case to determine 18 if such evidence exists, and if it does exist, to inform those parties to preserve any such evidence. 19 9. Henthorn Material. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests that the Assistant United States

20 Attorney ("AUSA") assigned to this case oversee (not personally conduct) a review of all personnel 21 files of each agent involved in the present case for impeachment material. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 22 U.S. 437, 438 (1995) (holding that "the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable 23 evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police"); 24 United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1991). This request includes, but is not limited to, 25 any complaints filed (by a member of the public, by another agent, or any other person) against the 26 agent, whether or not the investigating authority has taken any action, as well as any matter for which 27 a disciplinary review was undertaken, whether or not any disciplinary action was ultimately 28 recommended. Mr. Ramirez-Medina further requests production of any such information at least 4

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 7 of 14

1 one week prior to the motion hearing and two weeks prior to trial. If the prosecutor is uncertain 2 whether certain information should be disclosed pursuant to this request, this information should be 3 produced to the Court in advance of the motion hearing and the trial for an in camera inspection. 4 10. Tangible Objects. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests the opportunity to inspect, copy,

5 and test, as necessary, all other documents and tangible objects, including photographs, books, 6 papers, documents, alleged narcotics, fingerprint analyses, vehicles, or copies of portions thereof, 7 that are material to the defense or intended for use in the government's case-in-chief or were 8 obtained from or belong to Mr. Ramirez-Medina. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E). Specifically, Mr. 9 Ramirez-Medina requests color copies of all photographs in the government's possession of the 10 alleged narcotics and the vehicle in which the narcotics were found. 11 11. Expert Witnesses. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests the name, qualifications, and a

12 written summary of the testimony of any person that the government intends to call as an expert 13 witness during its case in chief. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G). This summary should include a 14 description of the witness' opinion(s), as well as the bases and the reasons for the opinion(s). See 15 United States v. Duvall, 272 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2001) (finding that government's written expert 16 notice did not adequately summarize or describe police detective's testimony in drug prosecution 17 where notice provided only a list of the general subject matters to be covered and failed to identify 18 what opinion the expert would offer on those subjects). This request includes, but is not limited to, 19 disclosure of the qualifications of any government witness who will testify that he understands 20 and/or speaks Spanish or any other foreign language that may have been used during the course of 21 an interview with Ms. Ramirez-Medina or any other witness. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests the 22 notice of expert testimony be provided at a minimum of three weeks prior to trial so that the defense 23 can properly prepare to address and respond to this testimony, including obtaining its own expert 24 and/or investigating the opinions, credentials of the government's expert and obtain a hearing in 25 advance of trial to determine the admissibility of qualifications of any expert. See Kumho v. 26 Carmichael Tire Co., 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999) (trial judge is "gatekeeper" and 27 must determine, reliability and relevancy of expert testimony and such determinations may require 28 "special briefing or other proceedings") 5

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 8 of 14

1

12.

Impeachment evidence. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests any evidence that any

2 prospective government witness has engaged in any criminal act whether or not resulting in a 3 conviction and whether any witness has made a statement favorable to Mr. Ramirez-Medina. See 4 Fed. R. Evid. 608, 609 and 613. Such evidence is discoverable under Brady, 373 U.S. 83. See 5 United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988) (witness' prior record); Thomas v. United 6 States, 343 F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1965) (evidence that detracts from a witness' credibility). 7 13. Evidence of Criminal Investigation of Any Government Witness. Mr. Ramirez-

8 Medina requests any evidence that any prospective witness is under investigation by federal, state 9 or local authorities for any criminal conduct. United States v. Chitty, 760 F.2d 425 (2d Cir. 1985). 10 14. Evidence of Bias or Motive to Lie. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests evidence that any

11 prospective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Mr. Ramirez-Medina, or has a 12 motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); 13 Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197. 14 15. Evidence Affecting Perception, Recollection, Ability to Communicate, or Veracity.

15 Ms. Flores requests any evidence, including any medical or psychiatric report or evaluation, tending 16 to show that any prospective witness's ability to perceive, remember, communicate, or tell the truth 17 is impaired; and any evidence that a witness has ever used narcotics or other controlled substance, 18 or has ever been an alcoholic. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197; Chavis v. North Carolina, 637 F.2d 213, 224 19 (4th Cir. 1980). 20 16. Witness Addresses. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests the name and last known address

21 of each prospective government witness. See United States v. Napue, 834 F.2d 1311 (7th Cir. 1987); 22 United States v. Tucker, 716 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1983) (failure to interview government witnesses 23 by counsel is ineffective); United States v. Cook, 608 F.2d 1175, 1181 (9th Cir. 1979) (defense has 24 equal right to talk to witnesses). Mr. Ramirez-Medina also requests the name and last known 25 address of every witness to the crime or crimes charged (or any of the overt acts committed in 26 furtherance thereof) who will not be called as a government witness. United States v. Cadet, 727 27 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1984). 28 // 6

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 9 of 14

1

17.

Names of Witnesses Favorable to the Defendant. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests

2 the name of any witness who made any arguably favorable statement concerning Mr. Ramirez3 Medina or who could not identify him or who was unsure of his identity or participation in the crime 4 charged. Jackson v. Wainwright, 390 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1968); Chavis, 637 F.2d at 223; Jones v. 5 Jago, 575 F.2d 1164,1168 (6th Cir.1978); Hudson v. Blackburn, 601 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. 6 denied, 444 U.S. 1086 (1980). 7 18. Statements Relevant to the Defense. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests disclosure of

8 any statement that may be "relevant to any possible defense or contention" that he might assert. 9 United States v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105 (9th Cir. 1982). This includes grand jury transcripts that 10 are relevant to the defense motion to dismiss the indictment. 11 19. Jencks Act Material. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests production in advance of the

12 motion hearing or trial of all material, including dispatch tapes, that the government must produce 13 pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2. A verbal acknowledgment 14 that "rough" notes constitute an accurate account of the witness' interview is sufficient for the report 15 or notes to qualify as a statement under section 3500(e)(1). Campbell v. United States, 373 U.S. 487, 16 490-92 (1963); see also United States v. Boshell, 952 F.2d 1101 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that 17 interview notes constitutes Jencks material when an agent reviews notes with the subject of the 18 interview); see also United States v. Riley, 189 F.3d 802, 806-808 (9th Cir. 1999). Advance 19 production will avoid the possibility of delay of the motion hearing or trial to allow Mr. Ramirez20 Medina to investigate the Jencks material. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests pre-trial disclosure of such 21 statements to avoid unnecessary recesses and delays and to allow defense counsel to prepare for, and 22 use properly any Jencks statements during cross-examination. 23 20. Giglio Information. Pursuant to Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972),

24 Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests all statements and/or promises, expressed or implied, made to any 25 government witnesses, in exchange for their testimony in this case, and all other information that 26 could arguably be used for the impeachment of any government witnesses. 27 21. Agreements Between the Government and Witnesses. Mr. Ramirez-Medina

28 requests discovery regarding any express or implicit promise, understanding, offer of immunity, of 7

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 10 of 14

1 past, present, or future compensation, or any other kind of agreement or understanding, including 2 any implicit understanding relating to criminal or civil income tax, forfeiture or fine liability, 3 between any prospective government witness and the government (federal, state and/or local). This 4 request also includes any discussion with a potential witness about or advice concerning any 5 immigration benefits, any contemplated prosecution, or any possible plea bargain, even if no bargain 6 was made or the advice not followed. 7 22. Informants and Cooperating Witnesses. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests disclosure

8 of the names and addresses of all informants or cooperating witnesses used or to be used in this case, 9 and in particular, disclosure of any informant who was a percipient witness in this case or otherwise 10 participated in the crime charged against Mr. Ramirez-Medina. The government must disclose the 11 informant's identity and location, as well as disclose the existence of any other percipient witness 12 unknown or unknowable to the defense. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 52, 61-62 (1957). The 13 government must disclose any information derived from informants that exculpates or tends to 14 exculpate Mr. Ramirez-Medina. 15 23. Bias by Informants or Cooperating Witnesses. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests

16 disclosure of any information indicating bias on the part of any informant or cooperating witness. 17 Giglio, 405 U.S. 18 24. Such information would include what, if any, inducements, favors, payments or

19 threats were made to the witness to secure cooperation with the authorities. 20 25. Personnel Records of Government Officers Involved in the Arrest. Mr. Ramirez-

21 Medina requests all citizen complaints and other related internal affairs documents involving any of 22 the immigration officers or other law enforcement officers who were involved in the investigation, 23 arrest and interrogation of Mr. Ramirez-Medina. See Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal. 3d 531, 539 24 (1974). Because of the sensitive nature of these documents, defense counsel will be unable to 25 procure them from any other source. 26 26. Training of Relevant Law Enforcement Officers. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests

27 copies of all written videotaped or otherwise recorded policies or training instructions or manuals 28 issued by all law enforcement agencies involved in the case (United States Customs Service, Border 8

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 11 of 14

1 Patrol, INS, Department of Homeland Security, etc.) to their employees regarding: (a) the handling 2 of vehicles suspected to be transporting contraband across the port of entry; (b) the referral to 3 secondary inspection of persons within those vehicles; © the detention of individuals within those 4 vehicles; (d) the search of those vehicles and the occupants of those vehicles, including the proper 5 means of obtaining consent to search and what constitutes consent to search; (e) the informing of 6 suspects of their Constitutional rights; (f) the questioning of suspects and witnesses. Mr. Ramirez7 Medina also requests all written or otherwise attainable information regarding the training of 8 Customs agents at ports of entry in California to detect or discover contraband in vehicles entering 9 the United States, including any training offered to Border Patrol, INS, or officers of Homeland 10 Security Department, by the DEA or other law enforcement agencies or individuals. 11 27. Performance Goals and Policy Awards. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests disclosure

12 of information regarding standards used for measuring, compensating or reprimanding the conduct 13 of all law enforcement officers involved in the case (Customs, Border Patrol, INS, etc.) to the extent 14 such information relates to the detection of contraband. This request specifically includes

15 information concerning performance goals, policy awards, and the standards used by Customs for 16 commending, demoting, or promoting agents for their performance at the port of entry and their 17 success or failure to detect illegal narcotics in general. 18 28. TECS Reports. Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests all TECS reports, including reports

19 pertaining to all vehicle border crossings pertaining to the vehicle used in this case, any vehicles 20 pertaining to Mr. Ramirez-Medina, and any crossings by Mr. Ramirez-Medina. Any prior border 21 crossings are considered "other acts" evidence which the government must produce before 22 trial. Vega, 188 F.3d at 1154. 23 29. Reports of Scientific Tests or Examinations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

24 16(a)(1)(F), Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests the reports of all tests and examinations conducted upon 25 the evidence in this case, including, but not limited to, any fingerprint testing done upon any 26 evidence seized in this case, that is within the possession, custody, or control of the government, the 27 existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney 28 // 9

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 12 of 14

1 for the government, and that are material to the preparation of the defense or are intended for use by 2 the government as evidence in chief at the trial. 3 30. Brady Information. The defendant requests all documents, statements, agents'

4 reports, and tangible evidence favorable to the defendant on the issue of guilt and/or which affects 5 the credibility of the government's case. Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),

6 impeachment as well as exculpatory evidence falls within the definition of evidence favorable to the 7 accused. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). 8 31. Any Proposed 404(b) Evidence. The government must produce evidence of prior

9 similar acts under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1) and Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and any prior convictions 10 which would be used to impeach as noted in Fed. R. Crim. P. 609. In addition, under Fed. R. Evid. 11 404(b), "upon request of the accused, the prosecution . . . shall provide reasonable notice in advance 12 of trial . . . of the general nature" of any evidence the government proposes to introduce under Fed. 13 R. Evid. 404(b) at trial. The defendant requests notice two weeks before trial to give the defense 14 time to investigate and prepare for trial. 15 32. Residual Request. The defendant intends by this discovery motion to invoke his

16 rights to discovery to the fullest extent possible under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 17 the Constitution and laws of the United States. 18 19 20 III. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER MOTIONS Mr. Ramirez-Medina has not yet received any discovery in this case. As new information

21 surfaces ­ via discovery provided by government, defense investigation, or an order of this 22 court ­ the defense may need to file further motions or to supplement existing motions. Accordingly, 23 Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests leave to file further motions at a later date. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 10

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 13 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 Dated: July 10, 2008 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Mr. Ramirez-Medina requests this Court grant his motions. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Gregory Murphy GREGORY MURPHY Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. Attorneys for Mr. Ramirez-Medina [email protected]

11

Case 3:08-cr-02127-W

Document 13

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 14 of 14

GREGORY T. MURPHY California State Bar No. 245505 2 FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF SAN DIEGO, INC. 225 Broadway, Suite 900 3 San Diego, CA 92101-5008 (619) 234-8467/Fax: (619) 687-2666 4 E-Mail: [email protected]
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Attorneys for Alfonso Ramirez-Medina

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (HONORABLE THOMAS J. WHELAN) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ALFONSO RAMIREZ-MEDINA, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 08CR2127-W

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Counsel for Defendant certifies that the foregoing pleading is true and accurate to the best of his information and belief, and that a copy of the foregoing document has been served this day upon: Rebecca Kanter [email protected],[email protected],[email protected] Respectfully submitted,

DATED:

July 10, 2008

/s/ Gregory T. Murphy GREGORY T. MURPHY Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. Attorneys for Alfonso Ramirez-Medina