Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 809
The government strongly opposes Mr. Guo’s sixth request to delay sentencing, arguing it is meritless, dilatory, and unfair to victims, and urges the court to deny any further adjournment.
摘要
Government Letter · Opposition to Sixth Sentencing Adjournment Request
This four-page letter, dated February 27, 2026 from the Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to the case, opposes Mr. Guo's sixth request to adjourn sentencing for another thirty days (Dkt. 807, case-doc-807) in United States v. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT).
Opening Framing
The letter opens: "Miles Guo's sixth request to adjourn sentencing for another 30 days is entirely meritless. It should be denied."
The letter recites that since Guo was convicted more than eighteen months ago, Guo has "employed a strategy to delay his sentencing through adjournment requests, last minute decisions to fire his handpicked trial counsel, and dilatory motion practice." The letter cross-references Dkt. 774 at 1-2 (government's opposition to the fifth sentencing adjournment request) and Dkt. 718 at 1-3 (government's opposition to the fourth sentencing adjournment request).
Government's Principal Arguments
Strategy of Delay
The government argues that this sixth adjournment request "cements that Guo is waging a campaign to delay sentencing because he believes it helps him and his remaining adherents weaponize the 'absence of timely justice'" (citing Dkt. 511 at 1–2, a victim statement). The government argues that Guo is employing delay tactics to suggest to his remaining followers that the trial this Court presided over was unjust (citing Dkt. 774 generally).
Continuing Harm Argument
The government argues that even as Guo is awaiting (and seeking adjournments of) sentencing, he has continued to mobilize his supporters on social media and to attack victims (citing Dkt. 774 at 5: "the defendant is using delay as a tool of further harm"). The letter argues the Court should not permit Guo to exploit its scheduling patience for his own "malicious ends."
Prior Court Caution
When the Court granted the defendant a three-month sentencing adjournment in December 2025 (the defendant's fifth adjournment), the Court warned that no further adjournment would be granted absent exceptionally good cause. The government argues that nothing in the present request meets that bar.
Relief Requested
The government asks the Court to:
- Deny the sixth adjournment request;
- Maintain the April 13, 2026 sentencing date set in Dkt. 782;
- Direct the defense to disclose the ex parte Rule 17(c) materials (the subject of the separately filed case-doc-808).