Opinion
NO. 2:10-CR-54 EJG
09-20-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM MURRAY, Defendant.
Respectfully Submitted, BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney By: MATTHEW D. SEGAL Assistant U.S. Attorney
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
MATTHEW D. SEGAL
Assistant U.S. Attorney
MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR A TWO-WEEK EXTENSION
The United States respectfully requests two more weeks to file a legal memorandum in response to the Defendant's Section 2255 Motion. This would make the Government's response due on October 3, 2011.
This matter is not being ignored in any way. Today, the United States filed a twenty-seven page declaration from trial counsel. (Dkt. No. 62.) The Heller Declaration contradicts the Defendant's account in essentially every material respect. Based on the Defendant's anticipated testimony as against the credible, corroborated Heller Declaration and the transcripts of this Court's proceedings, it is believed that the Court could hold an evidentiary hearing and deny the Defendant's Section 2255 Motion based on credibility determinations and fact findings.
But before the Court orders a hearing, the undersigned respectfully requests a short continuance in which to research, analyze, and present the argument on whether the Court might be able to deny the Defendant's Section 2255 Motion without holding a hearing.
Concurrently with its next filing, the United States will also file an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. The Court may find it appropriate to bring the Defendant back to Sacramento so that he will be present should the Court decide it necessary to hear from him and make a credibility finding.
Respectfully Submitted,
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
By: MATTHEW D. SEGAL
Assistant U.S. Attorney
[PROPOSED] ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the Government shall file its response to the Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by October 3, 2011.
HON. EDWARD J. GARCIA