IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 15, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JIMMIE JOE MONTOYA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Anthony W. Ishii
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 Jimmie Joe Montoya
Date: May 7, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING
HEARING AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, JEREMY R. JEHANGIRI, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for plaintiff, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for defendant, Jimmie Joe Montoya, that the date for sentencing may be continued to May 7, 2012, or the soonest date thereafter that is convenient to the court. The date currently set for sentencing is April 9, 2012. The requested new date is May 7, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.
Mr. Montoya's pre-sentence interview was originally scheduled for February 9, 2012, but he was transferred form the Fresno County Jail to the Lerdo Detention Facility on February 8, 2012. The interview was then rescheduled for February 27, 2012, but defense counsel miscalendared the matter, causing another delay before the interview could be conducted. The interview was completed on March 12, 2012, but the delays have made it impossible to comply with the original sentencing schedule. Additional time is being requested to allow for to completion the Presentence Investigation Report and corresponding objections and/or responses.
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.
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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.