Opinion
2:12-cr-00472-JAD-CWH
08-15-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY HOROVITZ, Defendant.
JASON FRIERSON UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DISTRICT OF NEVADA SUMMER A. JOHNSON Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PAOLA M. ARMENI GIA N. MARINA Attorney for Defendant, ANTHONY HOROVITZ
JASON FRIERSON UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SUMMER A. JOHNSON Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PAOLA M. ARMENI
GIA N. MARINA
Attorney for Defendant, ANTHONY HOROVITZ
[THIRD REQUEST]
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE DATE TO RESPOND TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR INSTALLMENT PAYMENT ORDER [48]
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Anthony Horovitz, Defendant, by and through his counsel, Paola M. Armeni, Esq., and Gia N. Marina, Esq., of the law firm of Clark Hill, PLLC, and the Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through Jason Frierson, United States Attorney, and Summer A. Johnson, Assistant United States Attorney, to extend the time for the Defendant to respond to Government's Motion for Installment Payment Order [DKT 48], filed on July 7, 2022.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the deadline for filing any response be extended up to and including August 24, 2022.
This Stipulation is entered into for the following reasons:
1. The parties previously stipulated to extend the Response deadline to August 10, 2022.
2. The law firm of Clark Hill PLLC was retained on July 14, 2022. Defense counsel requested an extension to respond to the Government's Motion in order to fully evaluation the contents of the Motion and any associated pleadings.
3. Government counsel and Defense counsel have discussed potentially resolving this matter without the necessity of filing a Response.
4. Government counsel was out of the office until August 2, 2022. Defense counsel will be out of the office on August 5, 2022.
5. The parties would like the opportunity to try to resolve this matter to the satisfaction of all parties. Government counsel and defense counsel have had discussions to try to resolve this matter to the benefit of both parties. Defense counsel requests additional time to communicate the offers to their client.
6. For these reasons, the parties agree that the Response to the Motion for Installment Payment Order will be filed on August 24, 2022.
7. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay and the denial of this request for a continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.
8. For all of the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would be best served by the continuance of the Response to Motion for Installment Payment Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND ORDER
Based on the pending Stipulation of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby finds that:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the fact that counsel has agreed to a continuance, the Court hereby concludes that:
1. The parties previously stipulated to extend the Response deadline to August 10, 2022.
2. The law firm of Clark Hill PLLC was retained on July 14, 2022. Defense counsel requested an extension to respond to the Government's Motion in order to fully evaluation the contents of the Motion and any associated pleadings.
3. Government counsel and Defense counsel have discussed potentially resolving this matter without the necessity of filing a Response.
4. Government counsel was out of the office until August 2, 2022. Defense counsel will be out of the office on August 5, 2022.
5. The parties would like the opportunity to try to resolve this matter to the satisfaction of all parties. Government counsel and defense counsel have had discussions to try to resolve this matter to the benefit of both parties. Defense counsel requests additional time to communicate the offers to their client.
6. For these reasons, the parties agree that the Response to the Motion for Installment Payment Order will be filed on August 24, 2022.
7. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay and the denial of this request for a continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.
8. For all of the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would be best served by the continuance of the Response to Motion for Installment Payment Order.
9. This is a third request for a continuance of the response to the Motion for Installment Payment Order.
ORDER
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines for filing of responsive pleading, is hereby due on or before the 24th day of August, 2022.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines for filing a reply is hereby due on or before the 31st day of August, 2022.