Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings USA v. Orisca United States v. Christnel Orisca — D. Mass., No. 1:24-cr-10378-JEK First Motion to Continue Sentencing Hearing on an Emergency basis as to Christnel Orisca — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 47, D. Mass.)

Court filing

First Motion to Continue Sentencing Hearing on an Emergency basis as to Christnel Orisca — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 47, D. Mass.)

Filed May 11, 2026 in USA v. Orisca; one of 10 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Filed2026-05-11

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. 1:24-cr-10378-JEK · Doc. 47 · 2026-05-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 
___________________________________ 
) 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
) 
) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
Crim. No. 1:24-cr-10378-JEK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
CHRISTNEL ORISCA, 
 
 
) 
 
 
Defendant  
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
) 
___________________________________ ) 
 
 
DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING 
 
NOW COMES the Defendant, Christnel Orisca, by and through undersigned counsel, and 
respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Local Rule 40.2 of the Local Rules of the 
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the Court's inherent authority to 
manage its docket, for a brief continuance of the sentencing hearing presently scheduled for May 
12, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. In support thereof, undersigned counsel states as follows: 
 
I. 
GROUNDS FOR RELIEF & BACKGROUND 
Undersigned counsel is undergoing an acute respiratory episode that arose suddenly on the 
evening of May 10, 2025, that has rendered it difficult for him in good conscience, to proceed to 
sentencing tomorrow morning without first obtaining medical evaluation and clearance. Counsel 
submits this motion on an emergency basis, with no objection by the government, and 
respectfully requests that the Court continue the sentencing to a date convenient for the Court, 
counsel, and all parties. 
On the afternoon of Friday, May 8, 2025, defense counsel traveled to Newark, New Jersey, 
to attend a meeting in connection with a separate federal criminal matter in the United States 
District Court for the District of New Jersey. Following that meeting, counsel remained in the New 
York metropolitan area over the weekend on personal matters, returning to Boston by train on the 
evening of Sunday, May 11, 2025. Upon his return, counsel experienced significant and escalating 
respiratory distress, including persistent coughing and wheezing throughout the night. Counsel has 
a documented pre-existing condition of asthma. The acute episode, which counsel attributes in part 
to allergen or irritant exposure encountered during travel, has progressed to the point where 
Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK     Document 47     Filed 05/11/26     Page 1 of 4

 
2
counsel's primary care physician (“PCP”) has arranged for counsel to be seen by a nurse 
practitioner on the morning of May 12, 2025 - the same morning as the scheduled sentencing 
hearing. 
Given the medical appointment and the uncertain prognosis as of the filing of this motion, 
defense counsel is unable to represent with confidence that he will be fit to appear and advocate 
effectively on behalf of Mr. Orisca at 11:00 a.m. on May 12, 2025. The right of a criminal 
defendant to the effective assistance of counsel is a constitutional guarantee of the highest order, 
and while all sentencing materials have been properly filed in this matter, counsel is, 
regretfully, not prepared to present Mr. Orisca at sentencing while his own condition remains 
unresolved and potentially compromised. 
 
II. 
LEGAL STANDARD 
The Court possesses broad inherent authority to manage its docket, including the 
discretionary power to grant continuances. United States v. Barnette, 211 F.3d 803, 820 (4th Cir. 
2000) (trial court has broad discretion in ruling on continuance motions). The First Circuit has 
recognized that denial of a continuance may constitute an abuse of discretion and a violation of 
due process where it results in prejudice to the defendant, the denial of adequate representation, or 
the deprivation of the defendant’s right to present a full defense. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 
648, 659 (1984). A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel encompasses the right to 
counsel who is not operating under significant physical or cognitive impairment at a critical 
proceeding such as sentencing. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). Local 
Rule 40.2 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts 
governs the reassignment and continuance of hearings. Courts within this District have recognized 
that good cause, including counsel’s sudden incapacity, supports the granting of a continuance. 
See also D. Mass. L.R. 7.1(a)(2) (requiring good faith consultation with opposing counsel prior to 
filing non-dispositive motions, including continuance requests). 
Good cause plainly exists here. Counsel’s respiratory condition is acute and unanticipated. 
The medical appointment scheduled for the morning of May 12 is precisely the kind of 
circumstance that courts routinely recognize as warranting relief. Moreover, counsel has complied 
with Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) by conferring with the government’s representative, Assistant United 
Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK     Document 47     Filed 05/11/26     Page 2 of 4

 
3
States Attorney Dustin Chao, who has confirmed that the government does not object to the 
requested continuance. 
 
III. 
ABSENCE OF PREJUDICE 
No party will be prejudiced by the requested continuance. The government does not object. 
Mr. Orisca, who has been compliant with all conditions of his supervision pending sentencing, 
does not object to the brief delay. Indeed, it is in Mr. Orisca’s manifest interest that sentencing 
proceed before counsel who is fully fit and able to advocate vigorously on her behalf, as her 
circumstances and mitigating factors deserve. The continuance sought is the product of an 
unforeseeable medical circumstance arising less than twenty-four hours before the scheduled 
hearing. Granting this motion will cause no disruption to the administration of justice and will 
preserve the integrity of the sentencing proceeding. 
 
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant Christnel Orisca, through counsel, 
respectfully requests that this Court grant this Emergency Motion to Continue the sentencing 
hearing presently scheduled for May 12, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., and reschedule the proceeding at the 
Court’s convenience. 
 
Respectfully submitted: 
CHRISTNEL ORISCA 
Defendant 
 
 
By and through his Attorney: 
 
 
Dated: May 11, 2026  
 
 
 
/s/ Vikas S. Dhar   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Vikas S. Dhar, BBO No. 657539 
vikas@dharlawllp.com 
 
 
Schrafft’s City Center Powerhouse Bldg. 
529 Main Street, Suite P200 
Charlestown, Massachusetts 02129 
Office: 617.880.6155 
Mobile: 617.935.6733 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fax: 617.880.6160 
 
 
 
Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK     Document 47     Filed 05/11/26     Page 3 of 4

 
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that this Sentencing Memorandum was filed electronically via ECF on May 
4, 2026, and that a copy was transmitted electronically to counsel for the Government, AUSA 
Dustin Chao, and to U.S. Probation Officer Carolyn Patten. 
 
/s/ Vikas S. Dhar 
Vikas S. Dhar  
 
 
 
Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK     Document 47     Filed 05/11/26     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.mad.278745.47.0.pdf
Size
191,673 bytes
SHA-256
0da55244462255b617f8a9580d9099ef537fb3c961a86a95eab616685598b96c
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mad.278745.47.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
  1. Judgment in a Criminal Case — United States v. Christnel Oriscasame docket · 2026-05-27
  2. Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Christnel Orisca (D. Mass.)same docket · 2026-05-05
  3. Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) — United States v. Christnel Orisca (D. Mass.)same docket · 2026-05-27
  4. Motion for Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) — United States v. Christnel Orisca (D. Mass.)same docket · 2026-03-04
  5. Government's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Christnel Orisca (D. Mass.)same docket · 2026-03-04
  6. First Motion to Continue Sentencing as to Christnel Orisca — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 43, D. Mass.)same docket · 2026-03-04
  7. Text of Proposed Order — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 41-1, D. Mass.)same docket · 2026-03-04
  8. Procedural Order re sentencing hearing — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 40, D. Mass.)same docket · 2025-11-25
  9. Notice to Counsel - Probation Interview of Defendant as to Christnel Orisca — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 36, D. Mass.)same case · 2025-11-03
  10. Joint Motion for Rule 11 Hearing as to Christnel Orisca — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 29, D. Mass.)same case · 2025-11-03
  11. Order entered. Scheduling Order — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 26, D. Mass.)same case · 2025-02-13
  12. Initial Scheduling Order — USA v. Orisca (D. Mass.)same case · 2024-12-27
  13. Notice of Appearancesame case · 2024-12-26
  14. Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley: ORDER entered.… — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 11)same case · 2024-12-13
  15. Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley: ORDER entered.… — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 10)same case · 2024-12-13
  16. Motion to Seal Case as to Christnel Orisca by USA — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 2, D. Mass.)same case · 2024-12-12
  17. Plea Agreement — United States v. Christnel Orisca (D. Mass.)same docket · 2025-11-03
  18. Indictment — United States v. Christnel Orisca (D. Mass.)same docket · 2024-12-12
  19. JS45 — USA v. Orisca (Dkt. 1.1)same docket · 2024-12-12
  20. Arrest Warrantsame docket · 2024-12-12

Part of: USA v. Orisca · U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · Other pandemic litigation · Criminal prosecutions · Motions · 2026 · Court filings

Back to top