From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Navarro-Delgado

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Feb 23, 2022
3:21-cr-00012-LRH-CSD (D. Nev. Feb. 23, 2022)

Opinion

3:21-cr-00012-LRH-CSD

02-23-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. FRANCISCO NAVARRO-DELGADO, Defendant.

ANDOLYN JOHNSON Asst. United States Attorney Counsel for Government THOMAS E. VILORIA, VILORJA, OLIPHANT, OSTER & AMAN, L.L.P. Counsel for FRANCISCO NAVARRO-DELGADO


ANDOLYN JOHNSON Asst. United States Attorney Counsel for Government

THOMAS E. VILORIA, VILORJA, OLIPHANT, OSTER & AMAN, L.L.P. Counsel for FRANCISCO NAVARRO-DELGADO

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and through THOMAS E. VILORIA, < counsel for FRANCISCO NAY ARO-DELGADO, CHRISTOPHER CHIOU, Acting United States Attorney, and ANDOL YN JOHNSON, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; that the sentencing set for March 10, 2022 11:00 a.m. be continued to May 3, 2022, 11:00 a.m.

The continuance is necessary for the following reasons: Due to counsels' ongoing additional investigation into mitigating factors, the likelihood of motions being filed before sentencing and the need for additional time to effectively prepare for and present each party's sentencing position.

The defendant, who is out of custody, is in agreement that his counsel needs the additional time and consents to continuance of the sentencing

I, FRANCISCO NAVARRO-DELGADO, hereby consent to the above and foregoing Stipulation to Continue Sentencing.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the pending Stipulation of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court finds that:

1. The continuance is necessary for the following reasons. First, the failure to grant this continuance would deny counsel for the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C § 316l(h)(7)(B)(iv).

2. The defendant does not oppose th e continuance.

3. The parties will need additional time to conduct investigation into mitigating factors and there is a likelihood of motions being filed before sentencing.

4. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay, but merely to allow counsel for the defendant sufficient time to complete necessary research and prepare for sentencing

5. Denial of this request for continuance would deny counsel for the defendant sufficient tin1e to effectively and thoroughly prepare, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

This is the second stipulation to continue the sentencing filed herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The ends of justice served by granting said continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant, 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.

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the sentencing currently scheduled for March 10, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. be vacated and continued to May 3, 2022, at 11:00 a.m.


Summaries of

United States v. Navarro-Delgado

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Feb 23, 2022
3:21-cr-00012-LRH-CSD (D. Nev. Feb. 23, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Navarro-Delgado

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. FRANCISCO NAVARRO-DELGADO…

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Feb 23, 2022

Citations

3:21-cr-00012-LRH-CSD (D. Nev. Feb. 23, 2022)