1

A more detailed recitation of the procedural history of this case can be found in

the court’s prior orders, including the February 17, 2012 order rescheduling Defendant’s

sentencing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCIS A. SHARRAK,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-20272

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S “MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF DUE 

DATES AND FOR 60 DAY ADJOURNMENT OF SENTENCING . . . ”

Before the court is a motion filed by pro se Defendant Francis A. Sharrak, in

which Defendant seeks yet another adjournment of his sentencing and the return of a

personal property removed from his cell at the Wayne County Jail. On April 5, 2012, the

Government filed a response. After reviewing the briefs, the court concludes a hearing

is unnecessary. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons stated below, the court will

deny Defendant’s motion.

The court will not again recite the long procedural history following Defendant’s

conviction in August 2010 on three counts of willfully failing to file federal tax returns and

one count of attempting to evade the payment of federal taxes.1

 Suffice it say, however,

that at a February 9, 2012 hearing and in a subsequent February 17, 2012 order, the

court informed Defendant that his nearly two-year effort to forestall the conclusion of this

case would no longer be permitted, and the court would not grant any additional
2

adjournments of sentencing absent the most extraordinary circumstances. In his latest

motion, Defendant argues that an adjournment is necessary for three reasons, all of

which are unavailing. 

First, Defendant claims that in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved

in this case, the “short time” he has been given to prepare for sentencing is inadequate. 

(Def.’s Mot. Adjourn ¶ 2, Mar. 20, 2012, Dkt. # 146.) Contrary to his belief that he has

only had a short period of time to prepare for sentencing, Defendant has been in

possession of the presentence report since the fall of 2010, giving him approximately

eighteen months to review the report, formulate objections, and draft any motions for a

guidelines departure or statements of proposed sentence variance. Furthermore,

Defendant’s contention that the complexity of this case makes it difficult for him to

prepare an adequate defense is an oft-repeated refrain relied upon by Defendant in

seeking prior adjournments and extensions of deadlines. (See e.g., Def.’s Mot.

Extension File Objections 2, Dec. 7, 2011, Dkt. # 140.) By electing to proceed pro se,

however, Defendant has assumed the risks and hazards that accompany selfrepresentation, and the fact that he now believes the issues to be complex does not

entitle him to repeated adjournments of his sentencing. 

Defendant next states that since approximately the beginning of February 2012,

the Wayne County Jail has not provided him with his prescribed medication on three

occasions. (Def.’s Mot. Adjourn ¶ 3.) Although Defendant’s standby counsel has in the

past indicated that the repeated failure to take his prescribed medications has impaired

his ability to prepare for sentencing, there is no indication now that the purported three

times Defendant did not take his medication over the course of an approximately two-
3

month period materially affected his ability to prepare for sentencing. Indeed, the fact

that Defendant was able to draft a coherent, five-page motion seeking an adjournment

of his sentencing and the return of his personal property suggests that Defendant has

maintained the mental and physical facilities necessary to proceed with sentencing. 

Finally, Defendant alleges that on March 8, 2012, a personal computer he claims

to have possessed since August 2010 and to contain documents necessary to prepare

for sentencing was removed from his cell by Wayne County Jail officials. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) 

As an initial matter, Defendant’s contention that he has relied upon the computer since

August 2010 to assist him in his defense is directly contradicted by Defendant’s own

hand-written motion filed in October 2010, in which he stated that he “has had ONLY

the use of bowling/golf pencils” with which to file motions. (Mot. Extension Time 2, Oct.

21, 2010, Dkt. # 87). Moreover, in spite of Defendant’s contention that the United

States Marshals Service and the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department knew that he

possessed the laptop in his jail cell, this court did not authorize possession of any

electronic devices in his cell, and the Government indicates that neither the Marshals

Service nor the Sheriff’s Department authorized the Defendant to possess the

computer. (Gov’t’s Resp. to Def’s Mot. Adjourn ¶¶ 13-14, 17, April 5, 2012, Dkt. # 149.) 

According to the Government, the computer was removed from Defendant’s cell

pursuant to a federal investigation unrelated to this case. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-17.) Counsel for

the Government has “been in frequent contact with stand-by counsel for defendant

[since the computer was seized], and from the very outset, a prompt offer was made to

prioritize and provide electronic copies of any specific files containing legally permissible

items that authorities could turn over to defendant.” (Id. at ¶ 19.) Defendant has, to
2

To the extent Defendant’s motion also seeks the return of the personal

computer, the request is denied. Defendant has proffered no evidence demonstrating

that he is entitled to possess the laptop while incarcerated at the Wayne County Jail and

the Government has stated that the computer was seized pursuant to a federal

investigation.

4

date, failed to identify any files that he believes he is entitled to possess. (Id.) Because

the Government has offered to make available to standby counsel and Defendant any

specific files that may be on the computer’s hard drive and needed by Defendant for

sentencing purposes, Defendant’s contention that his inability to access the computer

requires an adjournment of his sentencing is without merit. If Defendant believed that

documents stored exclusively on the computer were necessary for sentencing, he could

have accepted—and presumably still can accept—the Government’s offer to provide

copies of any specific files Defendant identifies.2

In addition to seeking a sixty-day adjournment and a return of his personal

property, Defendant asks the court to authorize the visitation of unnamed “legal

professionals, para-professionals, and others” at the Wayne County Jail. Because this

type of administrative request should be addressed to the officials at the jail, not this

court, the court will deny Defendant’s request. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Francis A. Sharrak’s “Motion for Consolidation

of Due Dates and for 60 Day Adjournment of Sentencing . . .” [Dkt. # 146] is DENIED. 

The deadlines set forth in the court’s February 17, 2012 order remain in effect, and

Defendant’s sentencing shall occur on April 30, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 9, 2012
5

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, April 9, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Tanya Bankston for Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522 

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-20272.SHARRAK.Deny.Adjournment.wpd