Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona MICHELLE HAMILTON-BURNS Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 010269 United States Attorney's Office Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, CR-03-0974-PHX-DGC Plaintiff, v. Neil Rusty Bond, Defendant. The United States, by and through counsel, respectfully objects to the defendant's second request to continue the sentencing in this matter. The basis for his request, in essence, is that he would like additional time to determine the defendant's net income for the period of time the government alleged and proved at trial that defendant was working and earning income while receiving social security benefits. The defendant argues that if his eligibility was determined based upon net, as opposed to gross income, then he would not have made enough income to result in his revocation of benefits. Defendant was well aware, far in advance of trial, that the Social Security Administration had determined his ineligibility based upon his substantial gainful activity. This defendant raised the issue of gross vs. net income extensively during the trial through cross-examination of witnesses and in closing argument:. "We're talking about was it gross income, was it net income, was it residual income, was it money that was being invested back into the business to try to make it stabilized." (Trial Transcript, 3/11/2005, defendant's closing argument, p. 83) The jury nonetheless found the defendant guilty. The issue was again raised in defendant's GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING

Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC

Document 148

Filed 11/28/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Motion for New Trial, Issue "F," and resulted in an adverse ruling of this Court in its Order, dated July 14, 2005, denying defendant's Motion for New Trial. As defendant does not set forth sufficient grounds for a continuance of his sentencing, the government requests that his motion be denied. Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) may occur as a result of this motion or an order based thereon. Respectfully submitted this 28 th day of November, 2005 PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona /S Michelle Hamilton-Burns MICHELLE HAMILTON-BURNS Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC

Document 148

Filed 11/28/2005

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 5 6 attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of 7 a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /S Michelle Hamilton-Burns Timothy C. Holtzen [email protected] I hereby certify that on this 28 th day of November, 2005, I electronically transmitted the

Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC

Document 148

Filed 11/28/2005

Page 3 of 3