Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cr-00179-SRU Document 125 Filed O1/10/2006 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
vs. : CRIMINAL NO. 3:01CR179(SRU)
REYNALDO ARROYO : January 9, 2006 |
MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER [
The defendant, Reynaldo Arroyo, hereby moves to extend the deadline, from January 6 to
January 17, 2006 for filing his submission concerning whether the Court should have imposed a non-
trivially different sentence in this case had it known at the time of sentencing that the Sentencing
Guidelines were advisory. In support of this motion, the defendant states:
1. By one count indictment, Mr. Arroyo was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
2. Following a jury trial, Mr. Arroyo was convicted on November 6, 2003. This Court granted
defendant’s motion for new trial, and Mr. Arroyo was convicted again after re—trial on June 30, 2004.
On November 29, 2004, the Court sentenced Mr. Arroyo to imprisonment for a term of 51 months. é
3. By Order dated October 18, 2005, the Court of Appeals granted the defendant’s motion to
dismiss defendant’s appeal, to vacate the judgment and to remand for entry of a new judgment and for E
re—sentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and
States v. Crosby, 397 F. 3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). ‘
4. By Scheduling Order dated December 6, 2005, this Court set January 6, 2006 as the deadline Q
for counsel "to file written simultaneous submissions concerning whetherl should have imposed a non- E
trivially different sentence[.]" g
5. Through oversight, counsel for Mr. Arroyo was not aware of the Scheduling Order until 5
January 9, 2006, when he received the government’s written submission and read on the first page a i
reference to the Scheduling Order. At that point, counsel discontinued reading the memorandum and
called counsel to the government to advise him of the oversight, to ask his consent to a motion to extend g
I l

_ Case 3:03-cr-00179-SRU Document 125 Filed O1/10/2006 Page 2 of 2
- 2 -
the time for filing a written submission and to offer not to read the government’s submission before ,
filing the defendant’ s memorandum. Counsel for the government graciously consented to the proposed I
motion for an extension of time. I
Respectfully submitted,
THE DEFENDAN T,
REYNALDO ARROYO
THOMAS G. DENNIS
FEDERAL DEFENDER
Dated: January 9, 2006 2 UMA
Paul F. Thomas
Asst. Federal Defender
2 Whitney Ave., Suite 300
New Haven, CT 06510
Bar No. ct01724
(203) 498-4200
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER has been mailed to Thomas V. Daily, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Federal Building,
450 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06103, on this 9th day of J anuary 2006.
@@7Vm
Paul F. homas
i
i
[ 5
i