Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 779

摘要

Government Letter · Further Opposition to Fifth Adjournment Request

This three-page letter, dated December 17, 2025 from the Assistant U.S. Attorneys, supplements the government's opposition to Mr. Guo's fifth request to adjourn sentencing in United States v. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT), replying to Mr. Guo's December 17, 2025 reply letter (Dkt. 776, case-doc-776).

Government's Principal Arguments

1. Insufficient Explanation for Additional Time

The defense's four-page reply letter does not explain with specificity why current defense counsel should be afforded more time to prepare for sentencing than the prior counsel team needed to prepare for trial. The government characterizes the defense's invocation of:

• The volume of discovery;
• The complexity of this case;
• The need to translate materials;
• The temporary suspension of CJA payments

— as conclusory or "ipse dixit."

2. Rule 17(c) Implies Prior Review

The government argues:

• By appealing to the Court for a Rule 17(c) subpoena, the defense team necessarily would have needed to first review the discovery materials to confirm that the materials sought are not already in their possession (citing United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020));
• If the defense has done that review, it should be able to meet the existing sentencing schedule.

3. CJA Suspension Is Not Exceptional Cause

The defense had cited the temporary suspension of Criminal Justice Act payments as a contributing factor. The government dismisses this as a routine administrative issue that does not rise to the "exceptionally good cause" standard the Court previously articulated.

Tone

The letter characterizes the defense's arguments as "ipse dixit" and presses the Court to deny the request.