Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Randle

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 3, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHNNY RANDLE, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING AND ORDER THEREON Date: April 3, 2009 Time: 8:30 a.m. Court: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, KEVIN P. ROONEY, Assistant United States Attorney, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for Defendant Johnny Randle, that the date for sentencing may be continued to April 3, 2009. The date currently set for sentencing is March 6, 2009. The requested new date is April 3, 2009, or the soonest date thereafter that is convenient to the court.

Mr. Randle, along with several others, was originally charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in a multi-defendant indictment. The case arose out of a wiretap on the phone of the lead defendant, Charles Muhammad. It appears that the defendants other than Charles Muhammad were primarily customers of Mr. Muhammad. Charles Muhammad has entered a plea agreement and his sentencing date has twice been continued. Muhammad's sentencing is currently scheduled for March 27, 2009. Mr. Randle is requesting that his sentencing be continued to a later date based on his belief that the sentence imposed on Mr. Muhammad, whom he believes is more culpable, should be considered by the court when sentence is imposed on Mr. Randle, in order to avoid the possibility of unwarranted sentencing disparity.

The parties agree that the delay resulting from the continuance shall be excluded as necessary for effective defense preparation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). For this reason, the ends of justice served by the granting of the requested continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

ORDER

The intervening period of delay is excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). Good Cause exists.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090303

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.