The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender ERIC V. KERSTEN, Bar #226429 Assistant Federal Defender Designated Counsel for Service 2300 Tulare Street, Suite 330 Fresno, California 93721-2226 Telephone: (559) 487-5561 Attorney for Defendant Carlos Martinez
Date: November 28, 2011 Time: 1:00 p.m.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING HEARING AND ORDER
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, KAREN A. ESCOBAR, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for plaintiff, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for defendant, Carlos Martinez, that the date for sentencing may be continued to November 28, 2011, or the soonest date thereafter that is convenient to the court. The date currently set for sentencing is November 4, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. The requested new date is November 28, 2011, at 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Martinez is housed in Lerdo and is attempting to qualify for a reduction in sentence pursuant to the safety valve provision of the sentencing guidelines. The government agreed that Martinez could fulfill the debriefing requirement by means of a written proffer and Martinez was transported from Lerdo on October 24 and interviewed by defense counsel to allow for preparation of the statement. However, counsel had further questions when preparing the formal statement and Martinez had to be transported again, on October 31, to clarify these issues. Martinez's statement was then provided to the government on the afternoon of October 31 and, after review with the agents, the government has requested that one additional issue be addressed by Mr. Martinez. In addition, counsel was only able to finalize the defendant's sentencing memorandum after meeting with Mr. Martinez on October 31, and that document was filed on November 1, 2011. The government needs additional time to respond to Martinez's memorandum prior to sentencing. Based on the foregoing, the parties request that sentencing be continued.
The parties agree that the delay resulting from the requested continuance shall be excluded as necessary for effective defense preparation, and also for continuity of counsel, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (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 IT IS SO ORDERED. The intervening period of delay is excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...