Stipulation to Continue Post-indictment arraignment from December 29, 2020 — USA v. Kanyike (Dkt. 19, C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-mj-05936-DUTY · Doc. 19 · 2020-12-26 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

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 
NICOLA T. HANNA 
United States Attorney 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
RICHARD E. ROBINSON (Cal. Bar No. 90840) 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Major Frauds Section 
1100 United States Courthouse 
312 North Spring Street 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-0713 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269 
E-mail: 
Richard.Robinson@usdoj.gov 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
HASSAN KANYIKE, 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
No. 20-mj-05936 
STIPULATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR 
(1) CONTINUANCE OF DATE BY WHICH 
AN INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION MUST 
BE FILED, (2) FINDINGS OF 
EXCLUDABLE TIME PURSUANT TO THE 
SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, AND (3) 
CONTINUANCE OF POST-INDICTMENT 
ARRAIGNMENT 
   
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel 
of record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of 
California and Assistant United States Attorney Richard E. Robinson, 
and defendant HASSAN KANYIKE (“defendant”), both individually and by 
and through his counsel of record, Victor Sherman, hereby jointly 
stipulate and move as follows: 
1. 
On December 8, 2020, defendant was arrested on a complaint 
issued by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick for violation of 18 
U.S.C. §§ 1344 (2) (bank fraud).  The complaint was supported by an 
agent’s 26-page affidavit describing defendant’s alleged bank fraud 
scheme.  (ECF 1.)      
Case 2:20-mj-05936-DUTY     Document 19     Filed 12/26/20     Page 1 of 7   Page ID #:80

 
2 
 
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 
2. 
On December 9, 2020, defendant was presented and arraigned 
on the complaint.  Preliminary Hearing was set for December 23, 
2020.  Post-Indictment Arraignment was set for December 29, 2020, at 
11:30 a.m.  (ECF 6.)   
3. 
On December 18, 2020, defendant and his counsel signed and 
filed a Waiver of Preliminary Hearing.  (ECF 16.)     
4. 
The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), originally 
required that an information or indictment charging defendant be 
filed on or before January 7, 2021. 
5. 
By this stipulation, the parties jointly request that the 
Court continue the date by which an information or indictment must 
be filed to January 29, 2021.  
6. 
The parties further jointly request that the Court 
continue defendant’s Post-Indictment Arraignment from December 29, 
2020, to February 2, 2021, at 11:30 a.m. 
7. 
The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the 
Court find, that the ends of justice outweigh the interest of the 
public and defendant in the filing of an information or indictment 
within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act because: 
a. 
The arrest of defendant, on December 8, 2020, 
occurred at a time such that it is unreasonable to expect return and 
filing of an indictment within the period specified in Section 
3161(b). 
b. 
The facts upon which the grand jury must base its 
determination are complex and, thus, it would be unreasonable to 
expect return and filing of an indictment within the period 
specified in Section 3161(b).  That is particularly true given the 
limited time a grand jury would have to consider the facts because 
Case 2:20-mj-05936-DUTY     Document 19     Filed 12/26/20     Page 2 of 7   Page ID #:81

 
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 
of the restrictions on grand juries imposed by the COVID-19 
pandemic: 
i. 
On March 31, 2020, in response to the continuing 
spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, this Court suspended all regularly 
scheduled grand-jury proceedings until at least May 4, 2020, 
“pending further order of the Court.”  C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief 
Judge No. 20-044, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Suspension of 
Grand Juries, at 3 ¶ 1 (Mar. 31, 2020).  By subsequent order, the 
Court continued this suspension through June 1, 2020, unless 
otherwise ordered by the Court.  C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-05, 
In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Further Order Concerning Jury 
Trials and Other Proceedings, at 3 ¶ 7 (Apr. 13, 2020).  On May 28, 
2020, the Court ordered that in-person sessions of the grand jury 
could continue at the discretion of the Chief Judge.  C.D. Cal. 
Amended General Order No. 20-08, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency 
Order Concerning Phased Reopening of the Court, at 3 ¶ 8 (May 28, 
2020).  No grand jury in this district met from March 26, 2020, 
until June 5, 2020.   
ii. 
Consistent with this Court’s order, the Judicial 
Council of the Ninth Circuit declared an emergency in the Central 
District of California, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3174.  In re 
Approval of the Judicial Emergency Declared in the Central District 
of California (9th Cir. Judicial Council Apr. 9, 2020), 955 F.3d 
1140 (9th Cir. 2020).  The Judicial Council’s order recognizes that 
“under the emergency declarations of national, state, and local 
governments, as well as recommendations from the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention to convene groups of no more than 10 people, 
Case 2:20-mj-05936-DUTY     Document 19     Filed 12/26/20     Page 3 of 7   Page ID #:82

 
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 unable to obtain an adequate spectrum of . . . grand 
jurors.”  Id. at 1141. 
iii. On December 7, 2020, following “an unprecedented 
surge of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and test positivity rates 
in the Central District,” and a regional stay-at-home order issued 
by the State on December 6, 2020, the Court activated its Continuity 
of Operations (“COOP”) Plan.  Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, 
at 1-2.  Pursuant to the COOP Plan, from December 9, 2020 at 5:00 
p.m. through and including January 8, 2021, “All regularly scheduled 
grand jury proceedings are suspended and grand jurors will not 
otherwise be required to report for service or to call in to the 
United States Attorney’s Office for reporting purposes during the 
period for which grand jury proceedings are suspended.”  Order of 
the Chief Judge No. 20-179, at 2-3.   
iv. 
On December 3, 2020, the Acting State Public 
Health Officer of the State of California issued a Regional Stay at 
Home Order based on the “unprecedented surge in the level of 
community spread of COVID-19.”  California Regional Stay at Home 
Order 12/03/2020 (Dec. 3, 2020).  That order went into effect on 
December 6, 2020, and restricts business and social activities, 
including by suspending outdoor restaurant operations, in California 
regions for which ICU bed capacity is less than 15%.  As the Chief 
Judge’s December 7, 2020 Order recognizes, the Regional Stay at Home 
Order went into effect because ICU availability in the Southern 
California region, which includes the entire Central District of 
California, fell below 15%.  Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, at 
2. 
Case 2:20-mj-05936-DUTY     Document 19     Filed 12/26/20     Page 4 of 7   Page ID #:83

 
5 
 
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 
v. 
The last grand jury session in the Central 
District of California was on December 9, 2020, one day after 
defendant’s arrest on the complaint.  The next available grand jury 
session, consistent with Order No. 20-179, will be no sooner than 
January 11, 2021.    
8. 
Based on the foregoing, the parties request that the Court 
find that for the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial 
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), within which an information or indictment 
must be filed, the time period of from December 9, 2020, through 
January 10, 2021, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3161(h)(7)(A), because the ends of justice served by granting a 
continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the 
defendant in a filing of an information or indictment within the 
period specified in Section 3161(b). 
9. 
The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the 
Court find, that nothing in this stipulation and accompanying order 
shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial 
Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the 
/// 
/// 
/// 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-mj-05936-DUTY     Document 19     Filed 12/26/20     Page 5 of 7   Page ID #:84

 
6 
 
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 
period within which an information or indictment must be filed. 
IT IS SO STIPULATED 
Dated: December 24, 2020 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
NICOLA T. HANNA 
United States Attorney 
 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
 
      /s/ 
 
RICHARD E. ROBINSON 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
Dated: December 24, 2020 
 
 
     /s/ (per email authorization)  
VICTOR SHERMAN 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
HASSAN KANYIKE 
 
 
 
DECLARATION OF VICTOR SHERMAN 
I am defendant Hassan Kanyike’s attorney.  I have carefully 
discussed every part of this stipulation with my client, including 
the requested extension for filing an information or indictment to 
January 29, 2021, and continuance of the Post-Indictment Arraignment 
to February 2, 2021, at 11:30 a.m.  I have fully informed my client 
of his Speedy Trial rights.  To my knowledge, my client understands 
those rights and agrees to waive them.  I believe that my client’s 
decision to give up the right to have an information or indictment 
filed on or before January 7, 2021, and continue such deadline to 
/// 
January 29, 2021, is an informed and voluntary one. 
Case 2:20-mj-05936-DUTY     Document 19     Filed 12/26/20     Page 6 of 7   Page ID #:85

 
7 
 
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 
 
 
Dated: December 24, 2020 
 
 
     /s/ (per email authorization)  
VICTOR SHERMAN 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
HASSAN KANYIKE 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-mj-05936-DUTY     Document 19     Filed 12/26/20     Page 7 of 7   Page ID #:86

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.804252.19.0.pdf

Size

53,613 bytes

SHA-256

3dfa227dfd9ee36c5a8b1b3b65ad1999826bb5371991f081094420f7bf702dac

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.804252.19.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)