Opinion
No. 09 CR 278
12-21-2011
United States of America, Petitioner, v. Pronto Staffing, Inc, William J. Brandt and Esperanza A. Brandt, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Although this three-defendant criminal case began back in May 2009 with the contemporaneous waiver of an indictment by all three defendants, plus their entry of a guilty plea to the criminal information, that swift disposition was coupled with an agreed-upon deferral of sentencing. Almost exactly 2-1/2 years later, the parties have recently been submitting sentencing memoranda looking to a current sentencing.
This Court was not fully apprised of the reasons for a lengthy deferral, but no matter.
But just the other day counsel for defendant William Brandt ("Brandt") has tendered his Response to Government's Sentencing Memoranda. If this Court were presiding over an English course rather than a criminal sentencing, that submission might put Brandt in hot water, but as a legal document it makes several forceful points that call for further input from the United States Attorney's office.
This memorandum order will make no effort to provide chapter and verse as to the types of errors (such as run-on sentences, incomplete sentences; occasional misspellings or errors in punctuation, or what have you) that tend to distract the reader from the merits, one pervasive problem can serve as an illustration. That involves the regular misuse of apostrophes -thus Brandt and his co-defendant wife Esperanza Brandt are regularly referred to collectively as "Brandt's," while the plural form of COMP is similarly rendered as "COMP's." In like vein, the memorandum also refers to the "Veteran's Administration."
--------
Accordingly the scheduled December 21 sentencing is deferred, and the government is ordered to file a response to Brandt's Response as soon as that is feasible. This Court will then reset the sentencing date.
________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge