IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 23, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
KEVIN MARSHALL AGRAVA,
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 Kevin Marshall Agrava
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING AND ORDER
Date: September 10, 2012
Time: 10:30 a.m.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, BRIAN W. ENOS, Assistant United States Attorney, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for defendant, Kevin Marshall Agrava, that the date for sentencing may be continued to September 10, 2012. Because it is anticipated that extended argument may be required, it is requested that this matter be scheduled at the end of the calendar, at 10:30 or another time convenient to the Court. It is further requested that the parties be directed to file responses to the pending sentencing memorandums no later than September 4, 2012. The date currently set for sentencing is August 27, 2012. The requested new date is September 10, 2012, at 10:30 a.m.
The government has filed a sentencing memorandum and formal objections to the guideline calculations contained in the Advisory Guideline Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), while the defense has filed a sentencing memorandum requesting a downward variance from the calculated guideline range. The parties are requesting that sentencing be continued to allow additional time to respond to the opposing sentencing memorandums and objections. The requested period of delay is necessary because Mr. Agrava is housed in the Kern County/Lerdo detention facility, thus delaying communications with his counsel.
The parties agree that the delay resulting from the requested continuance shall be excluded as necessary 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.
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).
While the parties have stated good cause to continue the sentencing as requested, the Court notes that it has read all that has thus far been submitted. It understands the respective positions. If anything may be beneficial to supplement the already submitted information, it is probably not more argument, but rather more concrete evidence, such as:
1. IF there is dispute on the issue of the vulnerable victim enhancement, the evidence that supports the arguments. (If there is NOT a true dispute, nothing further is needed);
2. Concrete evidence on the issue of the defendant's having been a prior abuse victim. The sentencing is continued as requested: September 10, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.