Opinion
2:20-CR-301-RFB-BNW-2
12-20-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SINH VAN TRAN, Defendant.
MICHAEL J MICELI, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10151 PITARO & FUMO, CHTD. Attorney for Defendant SINH VAN TRAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY JACOB OPERSKALSKI, ESQ. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL J MICELI, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10151
PITARO & FUMO, CHTD.
Attorney for Defendant
SINH VAN TRAN
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
JACOB OPERSKALSKI, ESQ.
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING
(1ST REQUEST)
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between VIN SINH TRAN, Defendant, by and through his counsel MICHAEL J MICELI, ESQ, and the United States of America, JACOB OPERSKALSKI, Assistant United States Attorney, that Sentencing in the above-captioned matter currently scheduled January 5, 2023 at the hour of 11:00 a.m., be vacated and continued for forty-five (45) days or to a date and time to be set by this Honorable Court.
This Stipulation is entered into for the following reasons:
1. Counsel for defendant has spoken to his client and he has no objection to this continuance.
2. Counsel has spoken to AUSA Jacob Operskalski and he has no objection to the continuance.
3. Defendant is out on pretrial release.
4. Counsel will need additional time to adequately review the Presentence Investigation Report and confer with his client regarding the issues and concerns that client has.
5. Denial of this request for continuance would deny the parties herein time and the opportunity within which to effectively and thoroughly research and prepare for sentencing in this case, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
6. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance would result in a miscarriage of justice.
7. For all the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would best be served by a continuance of the sentencing date.
8. This is the 1st request for a continuance of the sentencing date in this case.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the pending Stipulation of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court finds:
This Stipulation is entered into for the following reasons:
1. Counsel for defendant has spoken to his client and he has no objection to this continuance.
2. Counsel has spoken to AUSA Jacob Operskalski and he has no objection to the continuance.
3. Defendant is out on pretrial release.
4. Counsel will need additional time to adequately review the Presentence Investigation Report and confer with his client regarding the issues and concerns that client has.
5. Denial of this request for continuance would deny the parties herein time and the opportunity within which to effectively and thoroughly research and prepare for sentencing in this case, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
6. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance would result in a miscarriage of justice.
7. For all the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would best be served by a continuance of the sentencing date.
8. This is the 1st request for a continuance of the sentencing date in this case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The end of justice served by granting said continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendants in a speedy trial since the failure to grant said continuance would likely 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.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Sentencing currently scheduled for January 5, 2023 at the hour of 11:00 a.m. be vacated and continued to this 23rd day of February, 2023, at the hour of 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 7C.