Free Motion to Continue - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Jose S. Padilla State Bar No: 009792 P.O. Box 25128 Phoenix, Arizona 85002 (602) 277-4428 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorney for De fendant IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No. CR 04-1029-PHX-MHM
1st MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL and MOTION TO EXTEND TIME IN WHICH TO FILE PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS
(No Government Opposition)

vs JOSE M ACHA DO-SA NCHE Z, et al., Defendants.

Before the H onorable Mary H Mu rguia

Defendant respectfully requests that the court continue the curren t trial date of Augu st 23, 20 05, in the above captioned cause for the following reasons: 1. 2. Counsel w as appointed on July 8 , 2005. Contemporaneous with this motion, De fendant has subm itted his

"Discovery Letters" to the government. Counsel has not received any disc overy as of this writing. 3. Counsel is actively investigatin g possible d efenses, based upon the

information he does have, both legal and factual, to this end, counsel has met with the client, has requested information from the client for a possible defense, has been reviewing the documents associated Defendant's case for possible defenses. 4. Counsel and the government have discussed but have not entered into

a resolution short of trial. The particulars are still the subject of discussion. A s of this writing the parties are still exploring that p ossibility. The government has discussed extending an offer to the Defendant but have not done so as of this writing. Defendant and

Case 2:04-cr-01029-MHM

Document 42

Filed 08/16/2005

Page 1 of 4

counsel have discussed the possibility of an offer but the Defendant as of this writing is not convinced that the ple a is in his best interest. 5. Counsel will continue to pursue an out-of-court resolution and at the

same time prepare fo r trial in the event that negotiations should falter, additional tim e is necessary to fully explore resolution, and should that fail, thereafter proceed to trial after preparing an adequate defen se, all with due diligence. Impeding rapid resolution is the fact that Defendant is housed at CCA Florence and time, a very limited comm odity, is available to counsel only on the weekends given his trial settings and other court obligations. 6. Defendant requests that the court enlarge the time in which to file pre-

trial motions to fifteen (15) days before any trial setting rather than some artificial date to allow counsel the opportunity to continue w ith his investigation and the locating of possible witnesse s all with the assistance of his client. The matter is currently set for trial on the 23 rd day of August, 2005, @ 9:00 am before this court. Messr David Pimsner, Esq., AUSA ha s no opposition to the continuance for the stated purpose. Counsel asks for a period of no less than ninety (90) days in order to avoid repeated continuances. It is expected that excludable delay under Title 18 USC § 3161(b) will occur as a result of this Motion. RESPECTFUL LY SUBMIT TED this August 16, 2005.

___________________________ Jose S. Padilla Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:04-cr-01029-MHM

Document 42

Filed 08/16/2005

Page 2 of 4

Copies of the Foregoing Delivered this August 16, 2005, to: CLERK OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT The Honor able Mary H M urguia District Court Judge - Arizona United States District Court 401 West Washington Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85003 and [email protected] by ______ Fed\MTC

Copies of the Foregoing Mailed this August 16, 2005, to: PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney Messr David A Pimsner, Esq. (514-7500) Assistant US Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

Case 2:04-cr-01029-MHM

Document 42

Filed 08/16/2005

Page 3 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No. CR 04-1029-PHX-MHM
ORDER Re: 1st MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL and MOTION TO EXTEND TIME IN WHICH TO FILE PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS
(No Government Opposition)

vs

JOSE MACHADO-SANCHEZ, et al., Defendants.

Before the H onorable Mary H Mu rguia

Defendant moved this court for a continuance Re: trial date of August 23, 2005, and to rese t the same for the re ason that: D efendant's counsel has to investigate the matter, review discovery with his client and thereafter prepare an ade quate defense fo r trial. THE COURT SPECIFICALLY FIN DS that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a spe edy trial. This finding is based upon the court's conclusion that the failure to grant such a continuance would deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into accou nt the exercise of due diligence. 18 USC § 3161 (h)(1)(A). IT IS ORDERED vacating the trial date of August 23, 2005, and resetting the trial date for the ____ day of _______, 2004, at _______ am before this division. IT IS ORDERED setting the pre-trial motions deadline to fifteen (15) days prior to the trial date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that excludable delay under 18 USC § 3161(h)(8)(B)(i) will result and that such delay is found to commence on the ___ day of ____ , 2005, for a total of _____ days.

Case 2:04-cr-01029-MHM

Document 42

Filed 08/16/2005

Page 4 of 4