{"id":"court_sdny_30_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":30,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) United States Attorney Southern District of New York","summary_zh":"政府函件（排除审判时间申请） —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #30（2023年4月5日）。美国检控机关请求法院排除《迅速审判法》项下的时间以便待决保释金动议得以解决，并允许进行庞大的发现程序和被告人评估诉前动议；被告人 Ho Wan Kwok 同意该排除，Yanping Wang 反对。","summary_en":"Government motion letter for Speedy Trial Act time exclusion — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo, Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #30 (April 5, 2023). Prosecutors request exclusion of time to resolve pending bail motions and to allow voluminous discovery production and defense evaluation of potential pre-trial motions; defendant Ho Wan Kwok consents, while co-defendant Yanping Wang objects.","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007*\n\nApril 5, 2023\n\n**VIA ECF** Hon. Analisa Torres Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n## **Re:** *United States v. Kwok et al.***, S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government writes regarding scheduling and the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. As an initial matter, the Government respectfully requests that the Court set another pretrial conference date in this matter at a time convenient for the Court. The parties are available to coordinate scheduling with Your Honor's chambers.\n\nThe Government also respectfully requests that the Court enter an order excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act between the date of the last conference, April 4, 2023, and the next conference. Defendant Ho Wan Kwok consents to the exclusion of time, while defendant Yanping Wang objects to the exclusion of time. The Court should order that time is excluded for several reasons.\n\nFirst, time has been automatically excluded until the Court resolves the defendants' pending bail motions. *E.g.*, *United States v. Shellef*, 756 F. Supp. 2d 280, 297 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), *aff'd*, 718 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2013) (\"the time from the filing of the [bail] motion until the Court's decision . . . is automatically excludable under Section 3161(h)(1)(F)\").\n\nSecond, excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act from April 4, 2023,[1](#page-0-0) through the next conference date, serves \"the ends of justice.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Among other things,\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Speedy Trial Act requires that the findings necessary for the ends-of-justice exception \"be made, if only in the judge's mind, before granting the continuance,\" and that those findings need only \"be put on the record by the time a district court rules on a defendant's motion to dismiss.\" *Zedner v. United States,* 547 U.S. 489, 506–07 (2006); *see also United States v. Pikus*, 39 F.4th 39, 53 (2d Cir. 2022) (\"sufficient findings to support an ends of justice continuance must be put on the record by the time a district court rules on a defendant's motion to dismiss\" (internal quotation marks omitted)); *United States v. Leroux*, 36 F.4th 115, 123 (2d Cir. 2022) (reaffirming the validity of the principle that a subsequent articulation of ends-of-justice findings is sufficient and extending the principle to the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act); *United States v. Levis*, 488 F. App'x 481, 485 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding no violation of the Speedy Trial Act because, before denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, the district court ratified a letter filed\n\nthe requested exclusion will allow the Court and the parties to set an initial schedule in this complex case, the Government to begin producing the voluminous discovery in the case, the defense to begin reviewing the evidence and evaluating whether pre-trial motions will be made, and will enable the parties to discuss any pretrial resolutions of the charges.[2](#page-1-0)\n\nFinally, it is well established that \"in cases involving multiple defendants only one speedy trial clock\" exists, and one of the defendants here consents to the exclusion of time. *United States v. Piteo*, 726 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir. 1983).\n\nAccordingly, the Court should exclude time through the date of the next conference.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel Micah F. Fergenson Juliana N. Murray Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190\n\nCc: All Counsel (By ECF)\n\nby the Government confirming that the court had made the requisite ends-of-justice findings); *United States v. Breen*, 243 F.3d 591, 596 (2d Cir. 2001) (ends-of-justice findings required for Speedy Trial Act continuance \"are satisfied by a subsequent articulation\" of the findings).\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> The Government previously provided a proposed protective order to the defendants, which they are reviewing. The Government has also previously requested hard drives from defense counsel for the transfer of discovery, which the Government understands are on the way. The Government has also advised defense counsel that the Government expects to file a motion under the Classified Information Procedures Act (\"CIPA\"); the Government expects to file a letter regarding CIPA with the Court in the first instance.","body_zh":"United States Attorney Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官）\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007\n\n2023年4月5日\n\nVIA ECF\nHon. Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院大楼）\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n关于：United States v. Kwok et al.（美国诉郭文贵等案），S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府谨就日程安排及根据 Speedy Trial Act（《快速审判法》）18 U.S.C. § 3161 排除计算审限事宜致信。首先，政府恭请法院在法院方便的时间安排本案的另一次审前会议日期。各方均可配合与法官阁下的法官办公室协调日程。\n\n政府亦恭请法院下达命令，根据《快速审判法》排除上次会议日期2023年4月4日与下次会议之间的审限计算。被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）同意排除审限计算，而被告 Yanping Wang（王雁平）则反对排除审限计算。基于以下数项理由，法院应当裁定排除审限计算。\n\n第一，在法院对被告未决的保释动议作出裁决之前，审限已自动排除计算。例如，United States v. Shellef, 756 F. Supp. 2d 280, 297 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), aff'd, 718 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2013)（“从提交[保释]动议到法院作出裁定……的时间，根据第 3161(h)(1)(F) 条自动予以排除”）。\n\n第二，根据《快速审判法》，自2023年4月4日[1]起至下次会议之日排除审限计算，符合“司法公正之目的”。18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)。除其他事项外，\n\n[1] 《快速审判法》要求，为适用司法公正例外情形所必需的裁定“在准予延期前必须已经作出，即便仅存在于法官心中”，且该等裁定只需“在地区法院对被告的驳回起诉动议作出裁定之时载入记录即可”。Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 506–07 (2006)；亦参见 United States v. Pikus, 39 F.4th 39, 53 (2d Cir. 2022)（“支持出于司法公正目的延期的充分认定必须在地区法院对被告的驳回起诉动议作出裁定之时载入记录” [引文引号略]）；United States v. Leroux, 36 F.4th 115, 123 (2d Cir. 2022)（重申事后阐明司法公正认定即属充分的原则有效性，并将该原则扩展适用至《冠状病毒援助、救济和经济安全法》）；United States v. Levis, 488 F. App'x 481, 485 (2d Cir. 2012)（认定未违反《快速审判法》，因为在驳回被告的驳回起诉动议之前，地区法院追认了政府提交的确认法院已作出必要司法公正认定的信函）；United States v. Breen, 243 F.3d 591, 596 (2d Cir. 2001)（《快速审判法》延期所要求的司法公正认定“通过随后阐明”该等认定“即可满足”）。\n\n所申请的排除审限将使法院和各方能够为这一复杂案件制定初步日程安排，使政府能够开始提供本案浩繁的证据开示材料，使辩方能够开始审查证据并评估是否提出审前动议，并将使各方能够就各项指控的任何审前解决途径进行讨论。[2]\n\n最后，确立已久的判例表明，“在涉及多名被告的案件中，仅存在一个快速审判时钟”，且本案其中一名被告同意排除审限计算。United States v. Piteo, 726 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir. 1983)。\n\n因此，法院应当排除截至下次会议之日的审限计算。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\nUnited States Attorney（联邦检察官）\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\nMicah F. Fergenson（米卡·F·弗根森）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nAssistant United States Attorneys（联邦助理检察官）\n(212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190\n\n抄送：全体代理律师（通过 ECF）\n\n[2] 政府此前已向被告提供了一份拟议的保护令草案，被告正在审查中。政府此前亦已向辩护律师索取用于传输证据开示材料的硬盘，据政府了解，该等硬盘正在送达途中。政府还已告知辩护律师，政府预计将根据 Classified Information Procedures Act（《机密信息程序法》，“CIPA”）提出动议；政府预计将首先就 CIPA 事宜向法院提交信函。","key_entities":["Kwok","Torres","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Je","Analisa Torres","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","Classified Information"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":708,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:22:43"}