Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. De Armas Diaz, 2:13-cr-00148-JAD-GWF. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20141212988 Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING DATE JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between DANIEL G. BOGDEN, United States Attorney, and CHRISTINA M. BROWN and DANIEL R. SCHIESS, Assistant United States Attorneys, counsel for the United States of America, and Defendant Alexander Del Valle Garcia, by and through KATHLEEN BLISS, Esq.; Defendant Alexis Torres Simon, by and through OSVALDO FUMO, Esq.; and Defendant Julio de Armas Diaz, by and through Assistant
More

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING DATE

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between DANIEL G. BOGDEN, United States Attorney, and CHRISTINA M. BROWN and DANIEL R. SCHIESS, Assistant United States Attorneys, counsel for the United States of America, and Defendant Alexander Del Valle Garcia, by and through KATHLEEN BLISS, Esq.; Defendant Alexis Torres Simon, by and through OSVALDO FUMO, Esq.; and Defendant Julio de Armas Diaz, by and through Assistant Federal Public Defender, BRENDA WEKSLER, Esq., that the sentencing hearing presently scheduled for December 16, 2014, be continued and reset to a date and time to be determined by the court, but in no event earlier than January 6, 2015.

The Stipulation is entered into based on the following

1. The parties have agreed to file a stipulation to continue sentencing because on December 9, 2014 the U.S. Office of Probation filed a Second Revised PSR in response to Defendants' objections to the First Revised PSR, which contained changes impacting Probation's sentencing guideline calculations;

2. The parties require sufficient time to prepare and file objections to the Second Revised PSR and Sentencing Memorandums for the Court's consideration at sentencing;

3. The Government and the Defendants agree to a sentencing continuance;

4. The Defendants are in custody and have no objections to the continuance sought;

5. This is the fourth request for continuance of sentencing in this case;

6. Denial of this request for a continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice, and the ends of justice would best be served by a continuance; and

7. The additional time requested by this stipulation is excludable in computing the time within which the trial herein must commence pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7) (A) and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (ii).

Taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases, good cause exists for the Court to grant this continuance.

Before the Court is an agreed-upon request to continue the sentencing proceeding presently scheduled for December 16, 2014. The Court shall grant the motion based upon the following:

1. The Office of Probation, on December 9, 2014, submitted Second Revised PSRs in response to Defendants' objections to the First Revised PSR, which contained changes impacting the sentencing guideline calculations;

2. The parties require additional time to file objections to the Second Revised PSRs and Sentencing Memorandums for the Court's consideration at sentencing;

3. The Government and Defendants agree to a sentencing continuance;

4. The Defendants are in custody and have no objections to the continuance sought;

5. This is the fourth request for continuance of sentencing in this case;

6. Denial of this request for continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice. The ends of justice would best be served by a continuance; and

7. The additional time requested by this stipulation is excludable in computing the time within which the trial herein must commence pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (A), considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (ii) and taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases good cause exists for the Court to grant this continuance.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The ends of justice are served by granting a continuance of the sentencing date herein since the failure to grant said continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice, would deny the parties herein sufficient time and opportunity within which to effectively and thoroughly prepare for sentencing, taking into the account the exercise of due diligence.

ORDER

Based on the Stipulation of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby finds;

THAT the Sentence Hearing currently scheduled for December 16, 2013 be vacated and reset for Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 9:00 at for Julio De Armas Diaz; 10:00 a.m. for Alexis Torres Simon and 11:00 a.m. for Alexander Del Valle Garcia.

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