t stage." 1° 157 Proposed Amendments, supra note 71, R. 60(a)(3), at 15-16. 158 Compare United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1345-46 (D. Utah 2005) (finding that a victim must be heard orally at sentencing), and United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (noting in di

to interpret CVRA); United States v. Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006) (same); United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1344 (D. Utah 2006) (same); United States v. Ingrassia, 2005 WE 2875220 (E.D.N_Y. 2005) (same). 94 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) (2006). °° CVRA Subcommittee Memo, supra n

thdrawn if the CVRA was passed). 224 18 U.S.C. 3663A, 3664 (2000). 25 Td. 3663, 3664. See generally United States v. Bedonie, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004) (discussing different statutes), rev'd on other grounds, United States v. Serawop, 410 F.3d 656 (10th Cir. 2005). 26 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(1) (em

interests of justice standard); United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc., 711] F.2d 1164, 1174 (2d Cir. 1983) (compelling need standard). 68 See, e.g., D. Utah Crim. Local R. 32-1(c) (presentence reports not released without order of the court). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017751 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page

pe of communication between prosecutors and victims that was intended by the passage of the CVRA. See United States v. Heaton 458 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of interstate commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not

e of communication between prosecutors and victims that was intended by the passage of the CVRA. See United States v. Heaton, 458 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of interstate commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would no

Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015); United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 12131300, at *7 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013); United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757, at *9 n. I I (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010); United States v. Bohn, 330 F. Supp.

pe of communication between prosecutors and victims that was intended by the passage of the CVRA. See United States v. Heaton 458 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of interstate commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not

ian River Estates, Inc., 276 F.3d 790, 799 n.5 (6th Cir. 2002) . 13 Rowe v. DPI Specialty Foods, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00708-DN, 2015 WL 3533844, at *5 (D. Utah i eb) 13,28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) oo. cccccteeeseeeee 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-