Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Ockunzzi

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 13, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ANGELA OCKUNZZI, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
SHARI WONG CULOTTA, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK AKOOPIE, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT ROZZEN, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
DENNIS MORALES, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
PARKER ENLOE, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
TODD EMOND, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
BEVERLY ANTONIO, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL WAGNER, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
MARK GONZALEZ, Defendant.

         GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S OMNIBUS ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING RESTITUTION (First Request)

          DAYLE ELIESON United States Attorney.

          MARK E. WOOLF Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the United States.

          ORDER

         The United States of America (“Government”) hereby moves for an extension of ninety (90) days to file its response to the Court's Omnibus Order Regarding Clarification of Restitution (“Omnibus Order”) in the captioned cases. This is the Government's first request for an extension of time and is not sought for purposes of delay or any other improper purpose.

         The Court's Omnibus Order requires that the Government respond to several different requests for clarification of the judgements regarding several different defendants. Each of the defendants was a participant in a complex conspiracy that directly and proximately caused millions of dollars of loss to victims. To adequately respond to the questions raised in the Omnibus Order will require extensive review of the identified cases, up to and including: (1) reviewing the underlying case files and evidence, (2) reviewing relevant transcripts from sentencing and other hearings, (3) reviewing filings related to restitution in each case, (4) reviewing agreements entered into between the parties as it relates to restitution, (5) reviewing the restitution calculation supporting the sentences, (6) reviewing the interrelationship of multiple defendants as it relates to restitution and joint and several liability, and (7) reviewing the spreadsheet the Clerk's Office finance department relied upon to seek clarification of the Court's judgments.

         The necessary review requires a significant dedication of resources, both in time and funds. Given the significant passage of time since the judgments were entered, most of the original case files have been archived and must be retrieved from offsite locations outside of the district. In several of the identified cases the prosecuting AUSAs are no longer employed with the United States Attorney's Office and review will have to be performed by individuals not involved in the prosecution or sentencing. Even in those cases where the prosecuting AUSA is still with the office, the conspiracy underlying the convictions and restitution in these cases was far-reaching and complex and the cases were prosecuted many years ago. To adequately respond, the Government must obtain and review the relevant sentencing transcripts and transcripts from other pre or post-sentencing proceedings regarding restitution in several of the identified cases. The process of identifying and ordering the necessary transcripts is underway, but obtaining transcripts is an inherently time-consuming process. The Government must also review the relationship amongst the various defendants as it relates to the long ago prosecuted conspiracy to address the Court's questions regarding restitution calculations and joint and several liability. The combination of the necessary and any unforeseen tasks will take significantly more time than was originally allotted by the Omnibus Order.

         The Government notes further that the Omnibus Order identifies several issues that could raise significant legal questions, including, without limitation: (1) The authority to change restitution that is agreed between the parties, ordered by the Court as part of the criminal sentence, and unchallenged on appeal; (2) The authority to sua sponte reopen sentencing to recalculate restitution or determine joint and several liability years after the original sentence; and (3) The ability to appeal the original restitution and sentence as a result of the Court's Omnibus Order and responses thereto. While it is unclear at this time to what extent these or other issues may be implicated by the Omnibus Order, the Government needs additional time to fully investigate and respond to both the factual issues and legal issues raised by the Omnibus Order.

         Ultimately, while the questions posed in the Omnibus Order may appear simple and straightforward, the necessary tasks and analysis for a full and adequate response are not. The Government believes, without waiving its ability to seek additional time, that ninety (90) days should be sufficient to obtain, review, and analyze the relevant materials and address the issues raised in the Court's Omnibus Order. The requested extension will not prejudice or otherwise have any impact on the defendants, who were sentenced long ago and remain under the obligations imposed by the Court's lawful, unchallenged restitution judgments. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the Government have until Thursday, July 19, 2018 to file its response to the Court's Omnibus Order.

         Respectfully submitted this 13th day of April, 2018.

         IT IS SO ORDERED:

---------

Notes:

[1] The Court's Omnibus Order identifies the assigned District Judge as Judge Dawson in the case of United States v. Emond, 2:10-cr-00320. Judge Dawson was the sentencing judge, but he was recused from this matter on January 8, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.