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 of America v. John Marcus Desenberg

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


April 30, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN MARCUS DESENBERG,
DEFENDANT.

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

STIPULATION TO SET HEARING RE: LOSS AMOUNT/RESTITUTION AND TO CONTINUE SENTENCING SCHEDULE AND HEARING; ORDER (note change in time on the date requested at line 21) Date: July 20, 2012 Time: 8:30 A.M.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their respective counsel, Assistant United States Attorneys Jeremy R. Jehangiri, Counsel for Plaintiff, and Assistant Federal Defenders Peggy Sasso and Eric V. Kersten, Counsel for Defendant John Marcus Desenberg, that a hearing relating to loss amount and restitution may be scheduled for July 20, 2012, at 8:30 A.M.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that a new sentencing schedule be set as follows: Event: Present Date: Requested New Date: Informal Objections Due April 30, 2012 July 30, 2012 Formal Objections Due May 14, 2012 August 13, 2012 Sentencing Hearing May 21, 2012 - 10:30 A.M. August 20, 2012 - 10:30 A.M. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the parties agreed to a loss amount for purposes of USSG §2B1.1. The parties disagree, however, with respect to restitution, and believe that an evidentiary hearing will be necessary to resolve the restitution amount. Accordingly, the parties request the revised dates to allow sufficient time to further investigate restitution and resolve the matter of restitution prior to sentencing. The parties agree that this additional time is needed and the continuance will conserve time and resources for both counsel and the court.

Because this is a sentencing hearing, there is no requirement for exclusion of time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. That said, the parties agree that the delay resulting from the continuance shall be excluded in the interests of justice herein and for effective defense preparation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) because the ends of justice served in granting such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy resolution of this matter.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney Dated: April 30, 2012 /s/ Jeremy R. Jehangiri JEREMY R. JEHANGIRI Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff DANIEL J. BRODERICK Federal Defender Dated: April 30, 2012 /s/ Peggy Sasso PEGGY SASSO ERIC V. KERSTEN Assistant Federal Defender Attorneys for Defendant John Marcus Desenberg

ORDER Good cause exists. Hearing: August 20, 2012 at 1:30 p.m..

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20120430

© 1992-2012 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.