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. Bunma

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


June 4, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SAMNEUK BUNMA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING AND ORDER THEREON Date: August 21, 2009 Time: 9:00 a.m.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, KATHLEEN A. SERVATIUS, Assistant United States Attorney, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for Defendant Samneuk Bunma, that the date for sentencing may be continued to August 21, 2009, or the soonest date thereafter that is convenient to the court. The date currently set for sentencing is June 5, 2009. The requested new date is August 21, 2009.

Mr. Bunma is out of custody. He and several co-defendants were charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana in a multi-defendant indictment. Some defendants have entered plea agreements but others are set for trial. A trial confirmation hearing is set for August 14, 2009. Mr. Bunma has entered a plea agreement and is awaiting sentencing. However, depending upon the decisions of the co-defendants who are set for trial, it may be necessary for Mr. Bunma to complete additional tasks prior to sentencing in order to comply with his possible obligations under the plea agreement. For this reason, it is requested that Mr. Bunma's sentencing be continued until a date after the trial confirmation hearing of his co- defendants.

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.

LAWRENCE G. BROWN Acting United States Attorney

DATED: June 4, 2009

KATHLEEN A. SERVATIUS Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. The intervening period of delay is excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20090604

© 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.