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. Fisher

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 18, 2019

United States Of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Justin Anthony Fisher and Joshua Ray Fisher, Defendants.

          NICHOLAS A. TRUTANICH UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

          ELHAM ROOHANI ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

          THOMAS PITARO COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT JOSHUA FISHER

          WILLIAM TERRY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT JUSTIN FISHER

          STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING (SECOND REQUEST)

          HONORABLE ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between, Nicholas A. Trutanich, United States Attorney, District of Nevada, Elham Roohani, Assistant United States Attorney, representing the United States of America, and Thomas Pitaro, Esq., representing the Defendant JUSTIN ANTHONY FISHER, and William Terry, Esq., representing the Defendant JOSHUA RAY FISHER that the sentencing in the above captioned case, which is currently scheduled for February 6, 2020 at 2:00 pm, be continued to a date and time convenient to this Court, preferably the week of March 3, 2020.

         1. Government counsel will be traveling out of the district on the currently set date.

         2. Government counsel needs additional time to obtain victim impact statements from the live victims in this case for the Court's consideration and to afford the victims their rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act. This includes facilitating their presence at sentencing if they so request, and obtaining restitution due to them.

         3. Defense counsel for both defendants need additional time to obtain mitigation evidence for the Court's consideration.

         4. Due to the voluminous discovery in this case, as well as the fact that there are two defendants, the parties anticipate that the Probation Office would appreciate additional time to prepare the Pre-sentence Investigation Reports.

         5. The defendants are incarcerated but do not object to the continuance.

         6. This continuance is not sought for purposes of delay, but to allow for adequate time to prepare for sentencing.

         7. Denial of this request could result in a miscarriage of justice, and the ends of justice served by granting this request outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy resolution to this case.

         8. The additional time requested by this stipulation is excludable in computing the time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161 (h)(7)(A), and considering the ...


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.