Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. HECKEL-WILLIAMS, 1:14-mj-00173-SAB. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150922592 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2015
Summary: JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND PROBATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 3564(d); ORDER STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Christopher Heckel-Williams, by and through his counsel of record, Assistant Federal Defender Erin Snider, hereby moves for a four-month extension of his term of unsupervised probation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3564(d). The government joins in this request. On December 4, 2014, Mr. Heckel-Williams pled guilty to being a minor operating a motor vehicle with a blood or breath
More

JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND PROBATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3564(d); ORDER

Defendant Christopher Heckel-Williams, by and through his counsel of record, Assistant Federal Defender Erin Snider, hereby moves for a four-month extension of his term of unsupervised probation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3564(d). The government joins in this request.

On December 4, 2014, Mr. Heckel-Williams pled guilty to being a minor operating a motor vehicle with a blood or breath alcohol concentration equal to or more than 0.05%, a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (Cal. Veh. Code § 23140(a)). See Judgment, Docket No. 11, at 1. That same date, the Court sentenced Mr. Heckel-Williams to serve twelve months of unsupervised probation, to expire on December 3, 2015. Id. at 2. As conditions of his probation, the Court ordered Mr. Heckel-Williams to: (1) pay a penalty assessment of $10.00 and a fine of $1,250.00, for a total monetary penalty of $1,260.00; (2) complete the First Time DUI Offender Program through the Department of Motor Vehicles; and (3) obey all federal, state, and local laws. Id. at 3.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3564(d) provides that, "[t]he court may, after a hearing, extend a term of probation, if less than the maximum authorized term was previously imposed, at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the term of probation, pursuant to the provisions applicable to the initial setting of the term of probation."1 18 U.S.C. § 3564(d). In this case, Heckel-Williams respectfully requests that this Court extend his term of unsupervised probation for four months to allow him additional time to complete the First Time DUI Offender Course and pay his remaining fine balance of $260.00 He is currently in the process of enrolling in the First Time DUI Offender Course. He was unable to enroll in the class earlier, as he was unable to find a suitable program in the town where he lived—Farmersville, California. Mr. Heckel-Williams was unable to complete the course in another town, as his driver's license is suspended as the result of the instant offense and he was unable to find alternative transportation. Mr. Heckel-Williams recently relocated to Visalia, California, and he has been able to find a suitable course there. Accordingly, Mr. Heckel-Williams requests a four-month extension of his term of unsupervised probation, so that he may complete the course and provide the certificate of completion to the Court and finish paying his fine prior to the expiration of his term of unsupervised probation.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Heckel-Williams requests that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3564(d), the Court extend his term of unsupervised probation for four months, with a new termination date of April 1, 2016.

ORDER

Pursuant to Mr. Heckel-Williams's request for an extension of his term of unsupervised probation, the Court hereby extends Mr. Heckel-Williams's term of unsupervised probation for an additional four months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3564(d). Mr. Heckel-Williams's term of unsupervised probation shall expire April 1, 2016. A review hearing is set for February 4, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Although the statute suggests a hearing is required, Mr. Heckel-Williams has submitted a status report detailing his performance on probation and he is requesting that probation be extended. Thus, it is defense's position that no hearing is required under the circumstances.
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