United States District Court, D. Nevada
HOFLAND & TOMSHECK Joshua Tomsheck, Esq. Nevada State Bar
No. 9210 Attorney for Defendant
G. BOGDEN United States Attorney
COWHIG Assistant United States Attorney
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING DATE,
HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, by and through Daniel G. Bogden, United States
Attorney, Dan Cowhig, Assistant United States Attorney, and
Kathryn C. Newman, Assistant United States Attorney, and
defendant, PHILLIP ALLERSON VAUGHN, by and through his
attorney, Joshua Tomsheck, Esq., of the law firm of Hofland
& Tomsheck, that the sentencing date in the
above-captioned matter now scheduled for January 23, 2017
vacated and continued to a date and time convenient to the
Court, no sooner than sixty (60) days beyond the current
setting, in order for the Parties to have sufficient time to
prepare for sentencing in this matter.
the SIXTH request by the undersigned defense counsel for a
continuance of the scheduled sentencing date, is made in good
faith and not for the purpose of delay and comports with the
good cause requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(b)(2).
Counsel for the Defendant is appointed CJA counsel.
Counsel for Defendant Armstrong is set for a firm jury trial
on January 17, 2017 in the Eighth Judicial District Court,
Clark County, Department 17, in Case C-269692-2, State of
Nevada v. Brandy Stutzman, which is a capital murder case
where the Defendant has been in custody fr six (6) years and
is facing the death penalty. This trial is expected to last
two to three weeks.
Counsel for the Defendant is concerned that legal issues
arising out of the decision in USA v Johnson might prejudice
the Defendant if the case proceeds to sentencing in its
Counsel for the Defendant is researching these matters and
has engaged the Government Counsel regarding a potential
resolution to protect the interests of the Defendant.
Denial of this request for continuance would deny the parties
herein time and the opportunity to effectively and thoroughly
prepare for the sentencing hearing, taking into account the
exercise of due diligence.
Additionally, denial of this request for continuance could
result in a miscarriage of justice.
all of the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would
best be served by a continuance of the sentencing date.
OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
upon the pending Stipulation of the parties, and good cause