IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 15, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
BRANDON ANTHONY MAYA, MATTHEW ANTHONY MAYA, TRAVIS HRONIS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Presently pending before the court is a stipulation and proposed order for a continuance of the judgment and sentencing date of defendants Brandon Anthony Maya, Matthew Anthony Maya, and Travis Hronis. (Dkt. No. 197.) The parties request that the presently-scheduled judgment and sentencing date of April 17, 2013, be vacated, and that the matter be reset for May 22, 2013. (Id.) For the reasons discussed below, the court denies the parties' request.
The court's records show that the above-mentioned defendants entered guilty pleas on December 13, 2011, and that judgment and sentencing was initially set for March 7, 2012. (Dkt. No. 108.) Since that time, the court has approved multiple stipulations by the parties to continue the judgment and sentencing date, most recently on March 5, 2013, when the court set the judgment and sentencing date for April 17, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. (Dkt. No. 184.) In approving the most recent stipulation, the court specifically stated: "The undersigned is disinclined to grant further continuances absent extraordinary circumstances." (Id.)
Thereafter, on April 12, 2013, the parties filed the instant stipulation requesting yet another continuance until May 22, 2013. (Dkt. No. 197.) The stipulation merely states that the continuance is requested to allow the parties additional time to prepare for sentencing and that Mr. Hansen, attorney for defendant Matthew Maya, is currently engaged in a jury trial in Sacramento County Superior Court. (Id.)
Given that defendants initially entered guilty pleas in December 2011 and that the court has already granted numerous continuances of the judgment and sentencing date, the parties should no longer be in need of additional time to prepare for sentencing. Furthermore, although the court is sympathetic to potential conflicts in Mr. Hansen's schedule, the scheduling conflict of a single attorney with a hearing in federal court that was set well in advance does not here constitute a sufficient basis for yet another continuance, let alone extraordinary circumstances.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The parties' stipulation to continue the April 17, 2013 judgment and sentencing date (dkt. no. 197) is NOT APPROVED.
2. Judgment and sentencing of defendants shall proceed on April 17, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., as presently scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.