You're viewing Docket Item 36 from the case USA v. Moore et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)
United States Attorney

J. DOUGLAS WILSON (DCBN 412822)
Chief, Criminal Division

WADE M. RHYNE (CABN 216799)
Assistant United States Attorney

1301 Clay Street, Suite 340S
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 637-3693
FAX: (510) 637-3724
Email: [email protected]


Attorneys for Plaintiff



10

11

12



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA



OAKLAND DIVISION

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
KYLE EDWARD MOORE, (a/k/a “Cal”),
CORTIO DETRICE WADE, (a/k/a “Tea”),
)
)
MARCEL DEVON BRIDGES, (a/k/a “Cell”),
DERRICKA LYNN FLUKER,
)
)
)
)

Defendants.

CASE NO. CR-13-00055 JST

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING
FROM DECEMBER 20, 2013 TO JANUARY 17,
2014 AND EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE
SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

Date: January 17, 2014
Time: 9:30 a.m.





The above-entitled matter is set before this Court on December 20, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. for status.

The parties have jointly requested that the hearing be continued to January 17, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. and that

the Court exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act between December 10, 2013 and January 17, 2014.

Defendants Kyle Moore, Cortio Wade, Marcel Bridges, and Derricka Fluker are charged in a 21-

count indictment alleging various violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Commit Financial Aid

Fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1342 (Wire Fraud). The allegations arise from a two-year investigation by the

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation into

suspected fraud in connection with Federal Student Loan and Grant Programs.

Following the defendants’ initial appearances before the magistrate court, the parties negotiated,

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE
CR-13-00555 JST

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



30

4:13-cr-00555-JST





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

and this Court approved, a stipulated protective order to facilitate the disclosure of discovery. The

United States also sought and obtained orders to copy and produce previously sealed search warrant

documents and grand jury transcripts. According to the parties, the grand jury transcripts consist of

evidence provided during the multi-month grand jury investigation that led to the captioned indictment.

Thereafter, the United States produced a voluminous amount of documentary and electronic discovery,

including witness interview summaries, financial spreadsheets, “straw student” records from multiple

California Community Colleges, detailed case agent reports, computer forensic reports from seized

media, covert audio recordings, search warrant documents, and grand jury material, among other

discovery items.

Following the United States’ initial discovery productions, the parties continued to meet-and-

confer regarding the defendants’ loss amount calculations pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1. Thereafter, the

United States created and produced a detailed spreadsheet setting for United States’ loss amount

calculation for each defendant, along with an explanation as to its loss calculation methodology.

Counsel for the defendants has been reviewing the above-referenced discovery, in addition to the loss

amount calculation spreadsheet, and requires more time to review the materials in order to effectively

prepare the case for further disposition. The United States agrees that additional time is necessary for a

meaningful review of the produced discovery. The parties have jointly agreed that the case will likely

resolve pursuant to a negotiated disposition, however the parties require more time to prepare the case.

On that basis, the parties jointly requested that the Court continue the hearing to January 17,

2014 and that the Court exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act between December 10, 2013 and

January 17, 2014. The parties agreed that the extension is not sought for delay. The parties further

agreed the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public

and the defendants in a speedy trial. Therefore, the parties further stipulated and requested that the

Court exclude time between December 10, 2013 and January 17, 2014 under the Speedy Trial Act for

effective preparation of defense counsel and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

For these stated reasons, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. For good

28

cause shown, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), and IT IS HEREBY

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE
CR-13-00555 JST



30







ORDERED that the hearing in this matter is continued from December 10, 2013 to January 17, 2014 at

9:30 a.m., and that time between December 10, 2013 and January 17, 2014 is excluded under the Speedy

Trial Act to allow for the effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the exercise of

due diligence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.



DATE: December 11, 2013









________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE
CR-13-00555 JST

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



30