Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 807
Mr. Guo requests a third adjournment of sentencing to allow time to obtain subpoenaed materials and review investor communications that he argues are critical to presenting his history, characteristics, and sentencing factors.
摘要
Defense Letter · Sixth Sentencing Adjournment Request
This three-page letter, dated February 24, 2026 from John F. Kaley of Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack (with co-counsel Joshua L. Dratel and Melinda Sarafa), asks Judge Analisa Torres to adjourn Mr. Guo's sentencing — then scheduled for April 13, 2026 — for approximately thirty additional days in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT). This is current counsel's third request for an adjournment.
Procedural Framing
The letter acknowledges the Court's December 22, 2025 Order (ECF No. 782), which noted that "No further adjournments of sentencing shall be ordered absent exceptionally good cause shown." The defense expressly addresses that standard, taking the position that the present circumstances meet it.
Defense's Reason: Rule 17(c) Subpoena Dispute
The principal reason recited is the pending Rule 17(c) subpoena dispute:
- November 12, 2025: Defense counsel filed the ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoena application (case-doc-815);
- January 13, 2026 (Ex Parte Order): The Court requested counsel supplement the request with information regarding (1) the relevance of the requested materials to sentencing, and (2) why counsel cannot properly prepare for sentencing without them;
- January 27, 2026: The defense filed the supplemental ex parte submission (case-doc-816).
With the supplemental submission pending and no ruling yet, the defense argues that proceeding to sentencing on April 13 would deprive Mr. Guo of access to materials counsel views as directly relevant to the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) — particularly Mr. Guo's history and characteristics.
Counsel's Position
The defense represents that it does not make the request lightly:
- Failure to seek the adjournment would, in counsel's view, constitute ineffective representation of the client;
- The defense is not presumptuous about the Court's docket and does not complain of the Court's deliberative pace.
Companion Filings
The filing is filed before the government's opposition (case-doc-809), the government's separate ex parte disclosure request (case-doc-808), and the defense's reply (case-doc-810).