Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. HAWKINS, CR 15-0064 WHA. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150609582 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING FROM JUNE 30, 2015 TO JULY 8, 2015 WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The defendant, RICKY DEXTER HAWKINS, represented by Elizabeth Falk, Assistant Federal Public Defender, and the government, represented by Rita Lin, Assistant United States Attorney, (collectively, the "parties") are currently scheduled to appear before the Court on June 30, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. for sentencing. The parties, by and through their counsel, respectfully re
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING FROM JUNE 30, 2015 TO JULY 8, 2015

The defendant, RICKY DEXTER HAWKINS, represented by Elizabeth Falk, Assistant Federal Public Defender, and the government, represented by Rita Lin, Assistant United States Attorney, (collectively, the "parties") are currently scheduled to appear before the Court on June 30, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. for sentencing. The parties, by and through their counsel, respectfully request a continuance of the defendant's sentencing to July 8, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. 1:30 P.M.

On April 14, 2015, the defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Indictment, which charged him as a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Sentencing was scheduled for June 30, 2015. At the change of plea hearing, the parties stated that they anticipated a factual dispute about whether the firearm at issue, which is pertinent to the case as relevant conduct, had an obliterated serial number.

On April 14, 2015, the government informed the defense that it intended to send the firearm for testing in connection with that factual dispute. Specifically, the government stated that, in instances in which a firearm's serial number had not been thoroughly and completely obliterated, traces of the serial number could sometimes remain. The government stated its intention to ask a laboratory to perform an acid-based chemical test to attempt to uncover any traces of the serial number that might remain. The government noted, however, that the test would destroy the paint and coating, as well as part of the metal, on the firearm in the spot where the government believes the obliteration likely occurred. The government therefore offered the defense the opportunity to examine the gun one more time before it was sent for testing.

The defense requested that the government refrain from testing until defense counsel could evaluate whether the defendant would like to hire its own expert to perform a different, non-destructive test first. The government expressed concerns about the parties' ability to complete both tests in time for sentencing, but the parties agreed that, if that issue arose, the parties would stipulate to continue the sentencing to accommodate the testing. Over the next month, counsel for the defendant consulted with several different potential experts, each of whom stated that the acid-based chemical testing proposed by the government would be preferable to the non-destructive options being considered. Accordingly, the defendant decided not to proceed with his own testing of the firearm.

On May 19, 2015, the defendant informed the government of his intention not to proceed with testing. Accordingly, the government promptly delivered the firearm to the laboratory for testing. At this point, the government has not yet received the results. The laboratory has informed the government that it anticipates that it will have a report regarding the results of the testing by June 10, 2015.

The parties' responses to the draft Presentence Report are due on June 9, 2015. In order to permit the parties to provide the pertinent information regarding the testing to Probation in their responses to the draft Presentence Report, the parties hereby stipulate to continue sentencing by eight days to July 8, 2015. In addition, the parties stipulate that their deadline to provide responses to the draft Presentence Report will also be extended by eight days to June 17, 2015.

The parties have conferred with the assigned Probation Officer Emily Libby, and she is available on July 8, 2015. The parties have also contacted the courtroom deputy for this Court, who has confirmed that the Court is available at that time as well.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer