Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Chin, 2:14-c-135-38CM. (2016)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20160624932 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jun. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2016
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Leslie Chin's Motion to Have the Trial Judge Conduct Sentencing filed on June 7, 2016. (Doc. #200). The United States takes no position as to Defendant's motion. (Doc. #203). Thus, Defendant's motion is ripe for review. On March 1, 2016, a jury found Defendant guilty of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine. (Doc. #182). The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Senior District J
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Leslie Chin's Motion to Have the Trial Judge Conduct Sentencing filed on June 7, 2016. (Doc. #200). The United States takes no position as to Defendant's motion. (Doc. #203). Thus, Defendant's motion is ripe for review.

On March 1, 2016, a jury found Defendant guilty of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine. (Doc. #182). The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota presided over the trial which was held in Fort Myers, Florida. At that time, Judge Magnuson was a visiting judge on an inter-circuit assignment in the Middle District of Florida. The undersigned has set the Defendant's sentencing hearing for June 27, 2016.

Defendant moves for Judge Magnuson, instead of the undersigned, to hold the sentencing hearing. (Doc. #200). Defendant objects to the amount of drugs the presentence investigation report attributed to him for the purposes of calculating his base offense level. Because the Government established the drug amounts through co-conspirator witnesses at trial, Defendant argues that Judge Magnuson must conduct the sentencing.

After careful consideration of Defendant's motion, arguments, and applicable law, the Court denies Defendant's motion. Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states, in pertinent part, that "[a]fter a verdict or finding of guilty, any judge regularly sitting in or assigned to a court may complete the court's duties if the judge who presided at trial cannot perform those duties because of absence, death, sickness, or other disability."2 Fed. R. Crim. P. 25(b)(1).

Here, Judge Magnuson is absent from this district. His inter-circuit assignment expired on or about April 30, 2016, and he currently sits in St. Paul, Minnesota. Furthermore, upon reading the presentence investigation report, trial transcripts, and hearing live testimony at the sentencing hearing, the Court will be familiarized with the evidence and legal issues involved in the case and will be able to impose a fair and appropriate sentence.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

(1) Defendant Leslie Chin's Motion to Have the Trial Judge Conduct Sentencing (Doc. #200) is DENIED. (2) The Government shall be prepared to present the co-conspirator witnesses, and any other appropriate witnesses, at the sentencing hearing on June 27, 2016.

DONE AND ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
2. Defendant cites to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in his instant motion. (Doc. #200 at 3 n.3). Conspicuously absent from that citation, is a reference to the "absence" component of the rule. The Court assumes defense counsel made an inadvertent or scrivener's error, and not a patent misrepresentation to the Court. That said, the Court reminds counsel that, when filing documents in federal court, he certifies to its accuracy and veracity, and it warns counsel not to expect future indulgence on such matters.
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