USA v. Lucero-Peace et al

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. CR 26-0048
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
Peter A. Leeming, SBN 119124
108 Locust Street, Suite 7
Santa Cruz CA 95060
pleeminglaw@gmail.com
Attorney for ALEJANDRO PELAYO-GONZALEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALEJANDRO PELAYO-GONZALEZ
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. CR-26-0048 EKL
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS
HEARING; [PROPOSED] ORDER
The above matter is scheduled for a sentencing hearing on Tuesday, May 19 at 10:30 AM. The
parties are respectfully requesting that the status hearing be continued until June 9, 2026, at 10:30 AM.
Counsel for Mr. Pelayo-Gonzalez will be out of the state from Saturday, May 9 to Monday, May
18. Counsel has also been involved in two state court hearings that have taken up virtually all his
time for the past several weeks. Thus, additional time is necessary for effective preparation.
Counsel for Mr. Pelayo-Gonzales has conferred with counsel for the Government, who does not
oppose this request for a continuance.
For the above reasons, it is respectfully requested that the status hearing in this matter be
continued until June 9, 2026, at 10:30 A.M., and that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from
May 19, 2026, to June 9, 2026, for effective preparation of counsel.
///
Respectfully submitted,
Case 5:26-cr-00048-EKL Document 51 Filed 05/11/26 Page 1 of 2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. CR 26-0048
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: May 8, 2026 	/s/ 	___
PETER LEEMING
Counsel for Defendant Ramon Castillo
_____________/s/_____________
NEAL C. HONG
Assistant United states Attorney
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Based upon the facts set forth in the stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown, the
Court hereby ORDERS that the status hearing in the above matter is continued to June 9, 2026.
It is further Ordered that the time between May 19, 2026, and June 9, 2026, is excluded from the
Speedy Trial Act based on the need for effective preparation of counsel. Furthermore, the Court finds
that the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the
public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The Court therefore concludes that this exclusion of time
should be made under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: ___________________ 	___________________________
Hon. Eumi K. Lee
United States District Judge
May 11, 2026
Case 5:26-cr-00048-EKL Document 51 Filed 05/11/26 Page 2 of 2