From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Badie

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 12, 2011
CR. No. S-08-0474 EJG (E.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2011)

Opinion

CR. No. S-08-0474 EJG

09-12-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BEHROOZ BADIE, and DINO ROSETTI, Defendants.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney PHILIP A. FERRARI TODD A. LERAS Assistant U.S. Attorneys


BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

PHILIP A. FERRARI

TODD A. LERAS

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT SEVEN AND [proposed]ORDER

For the reasons discussed below, the United States hereby requests that the Court dismiss Count Seven in the above-referenced superseding indictment. The basis for this motion is that Count 7 mistakenly refers to a transaction which, although related to the charged scheme to defraud, is not actually part of the scheme.

Count Seven charges defendants Badie and Rosetti with committing mail fraud in connection with a transaction involving W.E. and a residence located at 6130 Sweeney Road, in Somerset California, on or about December 8, 2006. In fact, with the assistance of Badie and Rosetti, W.E. purchased a residence located at 6134 Sweeney Road on January 31, 2006. This purchase included 10 vacant acres on an adjacent piece of land with the address 6130 Sweeney Road. On December 8, 2006, with Badie's assistance, W.E. sold the 10 acres at 6130 Sweeney Road. This is the transaction referred to in Count 7. Because this transaction is not properly viewed as a part of the scheme to defraud, the government moves for the dismissal of Count 7 pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a)

It should be noted that the purchase of 6134 Sweeney Road is specifically referenced in the Superseding Indictment (¶ 12). Documents relating to this transaction have been produced in discovery and the government intends to introduce evidence relating to this transaction at trial.

Defendants Badie and Rosetti have been advised of this motion and do not object to it.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

PHILIP A. FERRARI

TODD A. LERAS

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(a), Count 7 of the superseding indictment in case CR S 08-0474 EJG is dismissed.

EDWARD J. GARCIA

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Badie

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 12, 2011
CR. No. S-08-0474 EJG (E.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Badie

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BEHROOZ BADIE, and DINO ROSETTI…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 12, 2011

Citations

CR. No. S-08-0474 EJG (E.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2011)