Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00—cr—00227-SRU Document 1558 Filed 11/29/2006 @@0 @@7;* on firm an-nt
It T9? -GQ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ` ‘
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ` L I
v. Case No.
3:00cr22'/(SRU)
ESTRADA, ET AL.,
Defendants. 1
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
On November 28, 2006, I held a phone conference on the record with Alex Hemandez
representing the government, and Robert Sullivan, representing the defendant, Ricardo Rosario.
The purpose of the conference was to discuss how to proceed at the evidentiary hearing
O scheduled for Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate, ordering that I make findings on
two issues bearing on Rosario’s eligibility for the "safety valve" provision of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines: (1) Rosario’s criminal history category, and (2) W'hether Rosario used a
firearm in connection with the offense of conviction. I scheduled an evidentiary hearing to give
both sides the opportunity to present evidence on those issues. Both counsel indicated, however,
that they did not feel that additional evidence would be necessary, and that I could make the
required findings based on the current record.
In light of counsel’s representations, I told counsel that Thursday’s hearing would be, in
essence, an oral argument, rather than an evidentiary hearing. Neither side intends to present live
witnesses, although the govemment intends to proffer the statement of one witness. Based on the
argument and the current record, I will make the findings mandated by the Court of Appeals. At
some point after Thursday’s hearing, I will consider the Crosby remand issue, and if a further
sentencing proceeding is necessary, I will schedule it for a fixture date.

. i 1 n nn .u 1 ttl.! I
Case 3:00—cr—00227-SRU Document 1558 Filed 11/29/2006 Page 2 of 2
I also inquired whether the proffer requirements have been met for the safety valve
provision. Counsel disagree about whether the requirements have been met and indicated that 7
they would confer amongst themselves.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 28* day of November 2006.
M v
v gg *·¤({'
gfan R. Underhill
United States District Judge
-2-