{"id":"court_sdny_36_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":36,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 April 5, 2023","summary_zh":"法院令状 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #36（2023年4月6日生效）。法院批准政府排除《迅速审判法》项下时间的请求，同意排除时间至下次会议日期，排期状态会议，并认定排除该期间时间符合司法利益以便进行发现程序、被告人提交诉前动议及讨论案件可能的和解。","summary_en":"Court order — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo, Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #36 (April 6, 2023). The Court grants the Government's request to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, schedules a status conference, and finds that excluding time serves the ends of justice to permit discovery production, pre-trial motions, and discussion of potential resolution.","body_en":"*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,<sup>1</sup> through the next conference date, serves \"the ends of justice.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Among other things,\n\n<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\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\nGRANTED. The Court shall hold a status conference on June 6, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 15D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. Time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act through June 6, 2023. I find that the ends of justice served by excluding such time outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial because this will allow time for discovery, for the defense to file motions, and also for the parties to discuss pretrial resolution. By April 20, 2023, the parties shall file a joint letter advising the Court of the amount of time the parties anticipate will be needed to complete discovery and proposing a control date for trial.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: April 6, 2023 New York, New York\n\n[Signature]\n\nANALISA TORRES United States District Judge","body_zh":"One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007\n\n2023年4月5日\n\n通过ECF送达\nHon. Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官）\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事由：United States v. Kwok et al.（美国诉郭等案），S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府方致信关于排期以及根据《Speedy Trial Act》（《快速审判法》），18 U.S.C. § 3161 排除计算时间事宜。作为首要事项，政府方谨请法院在法院方便的时间就本案另定一次审前会议日期。各方均可配合法官阁下的法官室协调排期。\n\n政府方亦谨请法院作出一项裁定，根据《快速审判法》，将上一次会议日期（2023年4月4日）至下一次会议之间的期间排除计算。被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）同意排除计算该时间，而被告Yanping Wang（王雁平）反对排除计算该时间。基于若干理由，法院应裁定排除计算该时间。\n\n第一，在法院解决被告待决的保释动议之前，时间已自动予以排除计算。参见例如 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]动议到法院作出决定期间的时间……根据第3161(h)(1)(F)条自动可予排除计算”）。\n\n第二，根据《快速审判法》，自2023年4月4日1至下一次会议日期期间排除计算时间，符合“司法利益”。18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)。除其他事项外，\n\n1 《快速审判法》要求，适用司法利益例外情形所必需的认定“即使仅存在于法官内心，也必须在准予延期之前作出”，且这些认定只需“在地区法院就被告的撤案动议作出裁定之时载入记录”。Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 506–07 (2006)；亦见 United States v. Pikus, 39 F.4th 39, 53 (2d Cir. 2022)（“支持基于司法利益延期的充分认定，必须在地区法院就被告的撤案动议作出裁定之时载入记录”[引文省略内层引号]）；United States v. Leroux, 36 F.4th 115, 123 (2d Cir. 2022)（重申事后阐明司法利益认定即为充分的原则之有效性，并将该原则扩展适用至《Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act》[《冠状病毒援助、救济与经济安全法》]）；United States v. Levis, 488 F. App'x 481, 485 (2d Cir. 2012)（认定未违反《快速审判法》，因为在驳回被告的撤案动议之前，地区法院追认了所提交的一封信函\n\n所请求的排除计算将使法院和各方能够为这起复杂案件制定初步排期表，使政府方能够开始出示本案中大量的证据开示材料，使辩方能够开始审查证据并评估是否提出审前动议，并将使各方能够就指控的任何审前解决方式进行讨论。2\n\n最后，众所周知，“在涉及多名被告的案件中，仅存在一个快速审判时钟”，且本案中其中一名被告同意排除计算时间。United States v. Piteo, 726 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir. 1983)。\n\n因此，法院应将截至下一次会议之日期间的时间予以排除计算。\n\n谨呈，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\nUnited States Attorney（美国联邦检察官）\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\nMicah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗根森）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nAssistant United States Attorneys（美国联邦助理检察官）\n(212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190\n\n抄送：全体代理律师（通过ECF）\n\n准予所请。法院将于2023年6月6日下午1:00在New York, NY 10007（纽约州纽约市）500 Pearl Street（珍珠街500号）15D法庭举行状态会议。根据《快速审判法》，截至2023年6月6日期间的时间予以排除计算。我认定，排除计算该时间所符合的司法利益超过了公众和被告对快速审判的利益，因为这将为证据开示、辩方提交动议以及各方讨论审前解决留出时间。各方应于2023年4月20日前提交一份联合信函，告知法院各方预计完成证据开示所需的时间，并就审判基准日期提出建议。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2023年4月6日\nNew York, New York（纽约州纽约市）\n\n[签名]\n\nANALISA TORRES（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）","key_entities":["Torres","Kwok","Analisa Torres","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Je","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":709,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:22:43"}