USA v. Delgado Umana
| California Southern District Court | |
| Case #: | 3:25-mj-01234 |
| Case Filed: | Mar 17, 2025 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Mar 19, 2025 12:33 AM PDT |
|
Defendant
Walter Delgado Umana (1)
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
USA
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 03/19/2025 1:15 AM PDT |
| Sunday, March 16, 2025 | ||
| Arrest of Walter Delgado Umana (no document attached) (mme) | ||
| Monday, March 17, 2025 | ||
| 1 | 1
COMPLAINT as to Walter Delgado Umana.(mme)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Info Sheet
|
||
| 2 | 2 Set/Reset Duty Hearings as to Walter Delgado Umana: Initial Appearance set for 3/17/2025 before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres. (no document attached) (fjp) | |
| 3 | 3
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Kaley Schall Chan appearing for USA. (Chan, Kaley)Attorney Kaley Schall Chan added to party USA(pty:pla) (jmo).
|
|
| 4 | 4 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres: Initial Appearance as to Walter Delgado Umana held on 3/17/2025. Appointed Attorney Patrick Q. Hall (n/a)for Walter Delgado Umana. Detention Hearing as to Walter Delgado Umana held on 3/17/2025. USA oral motion for detention(Flight); motion granted as to Walter Delgado Umana. Defendant ordered detained without prejudice. Order of detention to be filed by Court. Bond set as to Walter Delgado Umana (1) No Bail. Rule 5 advisement provided. (Preliminary Hearing set for 3/27/25 at 1:30pm before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres. Arraignment set for 4/15/25 at 1:30pm before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres.) (Interpreter Matias Pizarro, Daniel Novoa). (CD# 3/17/2025 VET 25-1:3:56-4:21). (Plaintiff Attorney Adrian Henderson AUSA). (Defendant Attorney Julian Bugarin FD-S/A). (aje) | |
| 5 | 5 ***Spanish Interpreter needed as to Walter Delgado Umana (no document attached) (aje) | |
| 6 | 6
ORDER OF DETENTION as to Walter Delgado Umana. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres on 3/17/2025. (ave)
|
|
| 7 | 7
ORDER as to Walter Delgado Umana: The Court orders the United States to comply with the continuing duty to disclose evidence which is favorable to the defendant as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. Upon finding that the government has failed to comply with this order, the Court may, as appropriate, order the production of such information, grant a continuance, impose evidentiary sanctions, or, in extreme cases, dismiss charges.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres on 3/17/25. (aje)
|
|