Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Mehmood

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 18, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
YASIR MEHMOOD, Defendant.

          MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney JEFFREY A. SPIVAK Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR COMPENTENCY EVALUATION; AND GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR RESTITUTION

          HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         On May 2, 2017, the United States filed a motion for restitution, requesting that the Court order restitution in the amount of $54,275.98, based on a restitution report prepared by United States Postal Inspector Michael Chavez, filed with the government’s motion for restitution. (ECF #475).

         Between May 2017 and May 2018, the Defendant sought and obtained two continuances of the restitution hearing. (ECF #480, 494).

         On May 22, 2018, the Court issued an order, setting the restitution hearing for December 4, 2018. (ECF #503). The Court ordered Defendant to file any opposition to the United States’ restitution memorandum by September 4, 2018, and the United States to file any reply by September 18, 2018. In the order, the Court gave notice to the parties that it reserved the right to decide the United States’ motion for restitution on the briefs and without a hearing. Id.

         On August 2, 2018, Defendant filed a 365-page opposition. (ECF #505).

         On September 18, 2018, the United States submitted a reply to the Defendant’s opposition. (ECF #511). The reply noted that further research was necessary on Defendant’s Objection #7 (whether the restitution request involving Barclays Bank and Redline Auto Parts impermissibly double counted two victims), but requested the Court otherwise overrule the remainder of the Defendant’s objections.

         On November 19, 2018, Defendant filed a notice of hospitalization and requested a six month continuance. (ECF #519). The Court granted the request, and reset the hearing to June 4, 2019. (ECF #520).

         On May 13, 2019, the United States filed an opposition to the motion to continue and a revised restitution request. (ECF #529). In the opposition, the United States addressed the double counting Objection #7 issue raised in Defendant’s August 2, 2018 opposition, asked the Court to reduce the Barclays Bank restitution claim by $1,653.97. In the filing, the government submitted a revised restitution request. Id.

         On May 22, 2019, the Court found good cause for a further continuance of the restitution hearing, and continued the hearing to September 24, 2019.

         On June 3. 2019, Defendant filed an opposition to the revised restitution request. (ECF #535). He indicated that he opposed the restitution requests for American Express, Barclays Bank, and Elavon. Id.

         On September 4, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for competency evaluation. (ECF #536). This would be his second competency evaluation. On November 8, 2013, this Court previously ordered a competency evaluation for Defendant, and ordered Defendant competent on April 1, 2014 after a hearing. (ECF #110).

         ORDER

         The Court, having reviewed the filings by the parties, including Defendant’s objections to the United States’ ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.