Filed: Apr. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER ORDER TO CONTINTUE HEARING ON RESTITUTION OWED BY DEFENDANT ALEKSANDAR RANDJELOVICH FROM APRIL 23, 2015 TO MAY 28, 2015 TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for a restitution hearing on April 23, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to conti
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER ORDER TO CONTINTUE HEARING ON RESTITUTION OWED BY DEFENDANT ALEKSANDAR RANDJELOVICH FROM APRIL 23, 2015 TO MAY 28, 2015 TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for a restitution hearing on April 23, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to contin..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER ORDER TO CONTINTUE HEARING ON RESTITUTION OWED BY DEFENDANT ALEKSANDAR RANDJELOVICH FROM APRIL 23, 2015 TO MAY 28, 2015
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for a restitution hearing on April 23, 2015.
2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the hearing until May 28, 2015, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
3. The parties stipulate to the following:
a) The government had originally received two requests for restitution from victims in this case that include psychological reports and set forth certain itemized costs. These are items of cost which must be evaluated in light of the Supreme Court decision in Paroline v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1710 (2014). Further, since the time of the setting of the April 23, 2015 hearing, a third request for restitution has been tendered to the prosecution.
b) Each request for restitution is factually unique and needs to be analyzed individually, as well as in light of the other claims in this case and in conjunction with the facts and circumstances that are known as to other cases, where similar claims of restitution have been filed by these three victims.
c) The government has completed its initial analysis of the three claims and tendered that analysis to the court and defense along with some limited information concerning scope of the behaviors of defendants in the other cases. Paroline suggests that the facts of these other cases, might be some of the non-exclusive factors to be considered by a court in coming to a just and proper restitution order in these extremely complicated cases.
d) The government has maintained regular contact with the original case agent regarding potential evidence that may assist the Court and the parties in making a restitution determination, and has endeavored to answer factual questions concerning the instant case and other cases posed by the defense. Some of these answers are contained in the spreadsheets supplied by the government, concerning data for other cases involving the three claimants for restitution herein that need further analysis by the defense prior to tendering a final proposal for restitution analysis to the court.
e) The parties agree that a reasonable continuance to properly determine the amount of restitution would not be prejudicial to the defendant. See United States v. Moreland, 622 F.3d 1147, 1163 (9th Cir. 2010).
For these reasons, the parties ask the Court to continue the hearing in this case to May 28, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as it may be placed on the Court's criminal calendar.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
/s/ Michael J. Aye for
JOSH F. SIGAL
Assistant United States Attorney
FINDINGS AND ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
