IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 20, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
SAMNEUK BUNMA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
Judge: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING AND ORDER THEREON Date: April 23, 2010 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 April 23, 2010, or the soonest date thereafter that is convenient to the court. The date currently set for sentencing is January 22, 2010. The requested new date is April 23, 2010.
Mr. Bunma is out of custody. He has entered a plea agreement and is awaiting sentencing. It is anticipated that Mr. Bunma will be remanded at that time. On the requested sentencing date of April 23, 2010, a co-defendant in the case, Phat Sam, is also scheduled for sentencing.
Mr. Bunma has been out of custody, under pre-trial supervision, throughout the extended proceedings in this matter and he has had no problems whatsoever. He is currently working and has a five month old daughter. He hopes to stay out of custody as short while longer to allow additional time to bond with his daughter, and also to earn additional money to assist with her support. In addition, a 5K1.1 motion will be filed in this matter and, depending upon the decisions of co-defendants who are awaiting sentencing, it may be necessary for Mr. Bunma to complete additional tasks in order to comply with his obligations under the plea agreement.
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.
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.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.