Opinion
2:20-cr-000019-JCM-NJK
10-05-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BARRY GABELMAN, Defendant.
BIANCA R. PUCCI, Counsel for the Government DANIEL HILL, ESQ. HILL FIRM PLLC Attorney for Defendant
BIANCA R. PUCCI, Counsel for the Government
DANIEL HILL, ESQ. HILL FIRM PLLC Attorney for Defendant
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
SENTENCING DATE AND RESET RULE 29 BRIEFING
(Third Request)
JAMES C. MAHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Jason M. Frierson, United States Attorney, and Bianca R. Pucci, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United States of America, and Daniel Hill, counsel for Defendant Barry Gabelman, that the Defendant's sentencing date be extended to a date and time convenient for the Court around 90 days after the current sentencing date.
The Stipulation is entered into for the following reasons:
1. Defense counsel was appointed to replace trial counsel on April 22, 2022.
2. Defense has additional preparation and writing for Rule 29 and sentencing purposes. Defense counsel has been engaged in back-to-back jury trials. One life-tail trial was just finished on September 20, 2022 in EJDC case number C-22-363508-1, and a counsel starts an attempt murder trial on October 10, 2022.
3. The Court denied Defendant's Rule 29 motion, without prejudice, with leave to re-file once new counsel was appointed. Current defense counsel is investigating whether trial transcripts will be needed to re-file the Rule 29 motion.
4. The additional time requested is not for the purposes of delay, but to allow defense counsel adequate time to familiarize himself with Defendant's case.
5. Denial of this request for continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.
6. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to continue Defendant Barry Gabelman's sentencing date for 90 days.
7. The parties also stipulate that any Rule 29 motion be due 45 days before sentencing, and any response/opposition to the motion be due 14 days thereafter.
ORDER
The ends of justice served by granting said continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy sentencing, since the failure to grant said continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice, would deny the parties herein sufficient time and the opportunity within which to be able to effectively and thoroughly prepare for sentencing, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that sentencing in the above-captioned matter currently scheduled for October 19, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., be vacated and continued to January 18, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any re-filed Rule 29 motion be due 45 days before sentencing, and any response thereto be due 14 days thereafter.