STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

SENTENCING HEARING [Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA] 1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY D. SCHINKEL,

Defendant.

Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CONTINUING SENTENCING HEARING

This matter is scheduled for a sentencing hearing on June 15, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. Based 

on recent developments surrounding the Presentence Report (PSR), the parties are requesting 

that the June 15, 2010 date be used as a status date and that the sentencing hearing occur on 

July 6, 2010, at 2:00 p.m.

Recently, the parties reviewed the initial draft of the PSR and raised objections to that 

report. On May 26, 2010, the parties met and conferred with Senior Probation Officer Insa 

BelʼOchi to discuss the draft PSR. During the meet and confer session, Ms. BelʼOchi raised a 

number of questions and alluded significant pieces of evidence which were not in the 

possession of Assistant U.S. Attorney Owen Martikan or defense counsel Edwin Prather. 

Case 3:09-cr-00033-WHA Document 50 Filed 06/04/10 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

SENTENCING HEARING [Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA] 2

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

Neither party knew of the existence of additional forensic reports of the evidence in this case or 

psychiatric evaluations of Mr. Schinkel, at a minimum. Ms. BelʼOchi indicated that her 

investigation was continuing and would inform the parties about evidence she relied upon. 

Defense counsel requested at that time that he receive all reports or other documents 

regarding this case in the possession of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the California 

Department of Justice, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and other law 

enforcement agencies.

On June 2, 2010, Ms. BelʼOchi indicated to defense counsel that, inter alia, the 

investigation for the PSR was continuing and that there were significant pieces of evidence not 

contemplated by the parties.

That same day, on June 2, 2010, Ms. BelʼOchi sent the Court an electronic mail stating 

in pertinent part that: “This case is very complex, and the Presentence Report and the Plea 

Agreement are in stark contrast on important core issues, including the number of images, the 

application of Vulnerable Victim, and the ability of the defendant to return to his current 

residence.” As of the morning of June 3, 2010, the final PSR was not yet completed.

Based on the representations made by Ms. BelʼOchi in the draft PSR, in person, and in 

subsequent phone calls, the defense is concerned and believes that it did not receive all 

discovery from the government. One report from the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children was in Ms. BelʼOchiʼs possession having received it from ICE. Until the recent 

meeting, the defense and U.S. Attorneyʼs Office was unaware of the existence of said report. 

The defense is also concerned that based on issues raised by the PSR that an 

evidentiary hearing may be required in this case to sort through these issues. 

Once the final PSR is provided to the parties, both the government and defense will 

require a short amount of time to analyze the issues raised by the PSR and the evidence relied 

Case 3:09-cr-00033-WHA Document 50 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

SENTENCING HEARING [Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA] 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

upon. At a minimum, full discovery must be complied with, and the parties must determine 

whether additional evidence exists which has not been considered.

As such, the parties propose that on June 15, 2010, at 2:00 p.m., the parties will appear 

before the Court to provide a status report regarding any outstanding discovery and evidentiary 

issues. The final PSR should be received in advance of this date and therefore afford the 

parties the opportunity to keep the Court apprised of the status of the evidence.

The parties propose that the sentencing hearing be held on July 6, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. 

The parties contacted the Courtʼs clerk who indicated that the Court was available on 

both June 15 and July 6, 2010.

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO 

United States Attorney

Dated: June 3, 2010 ______/s/______________________

OWEN MARTIKAN

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: June 3, 2010 _____/s/____________________

EDWIN PRATHER

Attorney for Defendant

JEFFREY D. SCHINKEL

Case 3:09-cr-00033-WHA Document 50 Filed 06/04/10 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

SENTENCING HEARING [Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA] 4

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING and per the partiesʼ stipulation, the sentencing 

hearing in this case is hereby continued until July 6, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. The parties will appear 

before the Court on June 15, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. for a status report to the Court re sentencing 

issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________ _______________________________

HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

June 4, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cr-00033-WHA Document 50 Filed 06/04/10 Page 4 of 4