Free Order on Motion to Continue - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

. O\Case 3:03-cr-00229-RNC Document 160 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 1 of 1 I I `Q 1
f .1 I A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . 4 I
. · DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ' ` I
1 . I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4: NGS NOV — 1 p 3: U l i I
a “ ‘ N°‘ 3‘°i@;9(RNC’ ` Wi B" ‘ . i ’
ai I FAUSTINO FLEURY . y : A I
O i I V V
OX " `
il; [ _ 1 MOTION FOR EXTENSION QF TIME i
O ·\ ' ` · Z· i
S The United States Attorney, through H. Gordon Hall, Assistant United States Attomey, ip
jp respectfully moves the Court to continue the date for sentencing in this case from the currently tv
M _ . . [
Q assigned date of November 7, 2005. In support ofthe motion, the undersigned represents as follows: ~ i
55: K
lj _
VO · l. The defendant is scheduled forsentencing in this case on November 7, 2005. I
*’ 1
E 2. The Court had continued a previously scheduled sentencing so defense counsel could
5 ¤ 2
E ` obtain an examination of the defendant, which has been completed. The report of the examination
o I p - .
§ was received by the undersigned on November .1. ·
:>.. ‘ . ' I
"§ ,~{ c 3. Defensecounsel has filed a supplemental memorandum in aid of sentencing, received on I
';_ I 7;-;November 3, in which he relates the findings reflected in the report to issues in the defendant’s i
·r·| 1 Q A Hf
" . sentencing. Government counsel has reviewed the memorandtun and the report, and has discussed ·
123 p .... %
U ‘ _ . O"! - tjltgj
Qi, ‘ e 1 Qboghwith ptefengiég {counsel. Notwithstanding these discussions, there appear to be significant Q
4,,) ’ . · ,. fi' ( `x ` i
¤ I 1.01 tm an , 1 I
$ *3 o}Mt.2indin&ssuéT‘§ZlEi&txveen the parties which both parties prefer to resolve amicably. ‘ I
` Fg; . tt -0 ZTIZQI ¤iCQf""Y~ _ °
_ U etwmit I yi: · _
ij K 2 I 4. glgore importantly, between the date on which the defendant’s plea was entered and today, ,
u er m {1;..% I 1
::1 ._.., _ .
Q gthe law of§ge Second Ciiicuit appears to have changed in a mamier which may have a significant
CD Q FQ l .
U; impact on the viability of the defendant’s plea. ,p At the time of the plea, it was settled law in the ‘ _
Q . I. ill I I ` (T ` 1
g Second Circuit that the identity and quantity of controlled substances involved in a drug offense are
k: E not elements ofthe offense. & United States v. King, 345 F.3d 149, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2003). This J
. o 1
Q U)