riLED SUPER tOR .GOORT 1 OF GUAM 2 2018MAYI4 AHH:03 3 CLERKO~~J 4 av~------ 5 6 7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 9 10 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0470-13
11 vs. 12 DECISION AND ORDER MAX THEODORE DIZON MANABAT, (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of 13 DOB: 09/1111992 Acquittal and for New Trial)
14 DEFENDANT. 15
17 INTRODUCTION 18 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on February 26, 2018 on Max 19 Theodore Dizon Manabat's ("Defendant") Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for a New Trial. 20 The Defendant was represented by Attorney F. Randall Cunliffe. Assistant Attorney General Peter 21 J. Santos appeared on behalf of the People of Guam ("People"). Upon review of the written and 22 oral arguments, and legal authorities presented by the Parties; for the reasons set out herein, the 23 Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for a New Trial ilfe hereby DENIED. 24 . A Sentencing Hearing is set for June 12, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. The Court also ORDERS 25 the following: the Probation Services Division may submit an update to the Pre-Bentencing 26 Investigation Report filed on February 1, 2018. Such update, if any, shall be filed no later than 27 June 1, 2018. The Parties shall have until June 8, 2018 to file Sentencing Memoranda. 28 ORIGINAL CF0470-13 People of Guam vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page 1 of12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial) 1 BACKGROUND 2 On December 28, 2017, a Superior Court of Guam Petit Jury returned a verdict of guilty 3 against the Defendant on the sole charge 1 in the Amended Superseding Indictment, Vehicular 4 Homicide. See Am. Superseding Indictment (Dec. 12, 2017); see also, 16 G.C.A. § 18111(a). The 5 charge arose out of a car crash that occurred on Marine Corps Drive near the Yigo Payless on 6 August 13, 2013. The Defendant was driving a black Toyota Camry southbound when he entered 7 the center lane and attempted to make a left turn off of Marine Corps Drive. The Defendant's 8 cousin, Paolo Sangil was in the passenger seat ofthe Camry. James Paul Aguero was driving a 9 moped northbound on Marine Corps Drive, with passenger Doreen L. Manglona. When the 10 Defendant turned left across northbound traffic, the moped .driven by Aguero collided with the · 11 Defendant's vehicle. All four individuals were taken to the hospital, where Aguero later died from . 12 injuries sustained during the crash. 13 The trial in this matter commenced on December 13, 2017, and continued on December 14, 14 15, 21, 22, 27, and 28, 2017. During the People's case-in-chief, and relevant to the instant 15 Motions, the following witnesses testified to inter alia the following: 16 f. Mr. Owen Lorzano ("Lorzano")
17 Lorzano testified that during the early evening on August 13, 2013, he was driving home 18 and headed northbound on Marine Corps Drive near the Yigo Payless. Testimony of Owen
19 Lorzano, Direct Examination, Jury Trial at 1:21:25 p.m. to 1:28:30 p.m. (Dec. 21, 2017). Lorzano 20 stated that the road was dry and that traffic was moderate. Id. He was driving between thirty-five 21 (35) to forty (40) miles per hour. Id. Lorzano further stated that he was eight to ten car lengths 22 behind a moped and that the moped was going about the same speed as he was. Id. He then 23 testified that he saw a black vehicle, heading southbound, move into the center lane and make a 24 1 The Defendant was initially charged with two (2) counts of Vehicular Homicide (As a 2nd Degree Felony), 25 Improper Left Turn (As a Violation), Reckless Driving with Injuries (As a Misdemeanor), and Failure to Yield the Right of way (As a Violation) in an Indictment filed on September 6, 2013. A Superseding Indictment, containing 26 the same charges, was returned by the Grand Jury on October 25, 2013. In a Decision and Order dated April 7, 2015, this Court dismissed the charges of Improper Left Turn (As a Violation), Reckless Driving with Injuries (As a 27 Misdemeanor), and Failure to Yield the Right of Way (As a Violation). In a separate Decision and Order Issued on January 11,2016 the Court dismissed the first Count inthe Superseding Indictment of Vehicular Homicide (As a 2nd 28 Degree Felony).
CF0470-13 People of Guam vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page 2 of12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial) 1 left turn. Id. Lorzano stated that he cringed at the time because he did not think that the car would 2 make the left turn without colliding with the moped. Id. Lorzano did not remember whether the 3 vehicle had a turn signal on when making the turn. Id. Lorzano testified that it appeared that the 4 driver .of the black vehicle did not see the moped. Id. The vehicle and the moped collided and 5 Lorzano stated he pulled over, called 9-1-1, and tried to help the driver and passenger of the 6 moped who were on the ground. Id. 7 ii. Doreen L. Manglona ("Manglona")
8 Manglona testified that on the evening of August 13, 2013, she was a passenger on a 9 moped driven by her then-boyfriend Aguero. Testimony of Doreen Manglona, Direct Examination, 10 Jury Trial 1:32:58 p.m. to 1:42:45 p.m. Manglona testified that she spent the day cooking at her 11 sister's house in Dededo, that Aguero picked her up that evening, and the two headed home to 12 Yigo on the moped. Id. The two were heading northbound on Marine Corps Drive. Id. Manglona 13 further testified that the two planned to stop at the gas station to put gas in the moped and purchase 14 cigarettes. Id. Manglona stated that near the Yigo Payless, she remembers a black car, heading 15 southbound, entered the center lane and attempted to make a left turn across the n()rthbound lanes. 16 Id. Manglona further testified that the car was coming fast and she knew the car and the moped 17 ·were going to collide when the car started the turn. Id. The car and the moped collided, and she 18 testified that everything happened so fast. Id. The next thing she remembers is waking up on the
19 ground to emergency lights and people standing around her. Id. 20 iii. Officer Restituto J. Guevara, Guam Police Department
21 Officer Guevara testified that he was one of the officers who initially responded to the 22 scene of the crash on August 13, 2013. Testimony of Officer Restituto Guevara, Jury Trial, Direct 23 Examination 1:25:30 p.m. to 1:25:01 p.m. (Dec. 22, 2017). He testified that he interviewed 24 Lorzano at the scene. Id. Officer Guevara further testified that he interviewed the operator of the 25 black Camry, Max Manabat and identified Mr. Manabat by his Driver's License. Id. He further 26 stated that the Defendant stated during the interview that he was headed southbound, slowed, and 27 28
CF0470-13 People of Guam vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page 3 of12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial) 1 then executed a left turn. ld .. The Defendant also stated that he did not see the moped until the light 2 was very close. ld.
3 DISCUSSION
4 As noted above, there are two motions before the Court: the Defendant's Motion for a 5 Judgment of Acquittal was filed on January 5, 2018. The People filed a response to the Motion on 6 January 22, 2018. The Defendant also filed a Motion for a New Trial on January 5, 2018. The 7 People filed an Opposition to that Motion on February 20, 2018. The Defendant replied to the 8 Opposition on February 26, 2018. The Court held hearings on the Motions on February 14, 2018 9 and February 26, 2018, and took both matters under advisement on February 26, 2018. The Court 10 also ordered, without objection from either Party, that the matters would be addressed .in one 11 Decision and Order. The Court addresses each motion separately below. 12 i. Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
13 The Defendant makes two arguments in the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. First, the 14 Defendant "renews his earlier [argument for] judgment of acquittal [made] at the close of the 15 Government's evidence." Def's Mot. J. Acquittal 1 (Jan. 5, 2018). At the close of the People's 16 case-in-chief on December 22, 2017, the Defendant moved orally for a judgment of acquittal. Jury 17 Trial1:43:57 p.m. to 1:52:43 p.m. (Dec. 22, 2017). The Defendant argued that during the People's 18 case-in-chief, the People failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Defendant was the-driver of 19 the black Camry that collided with the moped driven Aguero on August 13, 2013. ld. The 20 Defendant renews this argument in his January 5, 2018 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. Def's
21 Mot. J. Acquittal 1 (Jan. 5, 2018).The Defendant also argues that the Court should grant a 22 Judgment of Acquittal because "as a matter of law, the jury could not have found the Defendant 23 guilty of criminal negligence. ld. 24 In opposition, the People only responded to the Defendant's second argument, stating "[i]t
25 is perfectly reasonable for a jury of 12 people to conclude that a person who is driving a vehicle at 26 night, on a main highway, has a duty to be aware of his surroundings under the circumstances at
27 the time, and that not being fully aware of the circumstances constitutes a gross deviation of care 28
CF0470-13 People of Guam vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page 4 of 12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial) 1 that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation." People's Response to Def's Mot. J. 2 Acquittal 3 (Jan. 22, 2018).
3 Under Guam law, a defendant may move for a Judgment of Acquittal at the close of the
4 evidence of either side if the evidence is "insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense ...."
5 8 G.C.A. § 100.10. The Supreme Court of Guam has held "[i]t is not the province of the court, in
6 determining a motion for judgment of acquittal, to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass upon
7 the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or to weigh the evidence; 8 such matters are for the jury." People v. Chin Song, 2012 Guam 21 <]{ 29 (citations and brackets
9 omitted). Stated differently, "the court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at 10 trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ... [r]ather, [the court] must give full play to the
11 responsibility to the trier of fact to weigh conflicts in the testimony; to weigh the evidence, and to 12 draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." People v. Anastacio, 2010 Guam 18
13 <]{ 18 (brackets omitted). The Court is only concerned with "the existence or nonexistence of 14 evidence, not its weight." Chin Song, 2012 Guam 21 at<]{ 29 (citations omitted). If there is "any
15 direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the 16 accused, [the court] must find the case was properly submitted to the jury." Id.
17 The Supreme Court of Guam has also held that once an accused is convicted, the 18 presumption of innocence gives way to a presumption of guilt. Chin Song, 2012 Guam 21 at<]{ 28.
19 On a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal post guilty verdict, the Defendant bears the burden of
20 showing "that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict." ld. When disposing
21 of a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the 22 People and all reasonable inferences are therefore drawn in the People's favor. See ld.
23 a. Sufficient evidence was presented at trial such that a reasonable juror could find 24 the Defendant was the operator of the blackCamry at issue.
25 In support of the argument that the People failed to put on sufficient evidence that the · 26 defendant was the operator of the black Camry, the Defendant relies on, U.S. v. Brannon, 404 A.2d 27 926 (D.C. 1978). In Brannon, the court confronted the issue of whether a trial court erred in 28
CF0470-13 People of Guarri vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page 5 of 12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial) 1 determining that an in-court identification of the defendant should be suppressed on constitutional
2 grounds. Brannon, 404 A.3d at 928. However, in dicta, the Brannon court did state that "[i]f the
3 evidence presented by the government in its case in chief is so weak that a jury could not resolve
4 the identity against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, a timely motion for acquittal will be
5 granted." Brannon, 404 A.2d at 930. 6 The Court recognizes that identification of the defendant is "always an essential element
7 the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt." U:S. v. Alexander, 48 F.3d 1477, 1489- 8 490 (9th Cir. 1995). However the Court disagrees with the Defendant's position that in~court
9 identification is required. Rather, the state of the law is that "identification can be inferred from the 10 facts and circumstances that are in evidence." Alexander, 48 F.3d at 1489-90 (reasoning in that 11 specific case that separate witnesses testified regarding their contacts with the defendant and 12 neither suggested that the person on trial with the same name was not the same person) (citations
13 and quotations omitted)). 14 Here, Officer Guevara testified that he arrived at the scene and interviewed an eye witness
15 and Max Manabat, whose identity he confirmed by driver's license. He indicated that Max
16 Manabat was the operator of the black Camry. Further, none of the witnesses called by the People,
17 including Officer Guevara, indicated that the wrong person was sitting at the Defense table. Thus,
18 the Court finds there was evidence presented from which a reasonable juror could find that the
19 Defendant, who shares the name of the person identified by Officer Guevara, was the operator of 20 the black Camry that was involved in the crash with the moped operated by Aguero on August 13,
21 2013. On a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, the Court is only concerned with the presence of 22 evidence and not the weight of evidence. Thus, as to the Defendant's identification argument, the
23 Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal is DENIED. 24 b. Sufficient evidence was presented at trial such that a reasonable juror could find 25 the Defendant acted with criminal negligence.
26 A Motion for Judgment of Acquittal is properly denied where, when all other elements of a
27 crime are undisputed, specific facts in evidence support a reasonable inference that a defendant
CF0470-13 People of Guam vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page 6 of12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial) ·1 had the requisite mens rea to be found guilty of a crime. See Chin Song, 2012 Guam 21 at !][<][ 44- 2 45. In Chin Song, the defendant instigated an altercation and struck the victim on the top of the 3 head. Id. at<][<][ 3-23. The force of the defendant's blow was so hard that the victim was rendered 4 unconscious, and suffered internal bleeding and brain damage so severe that he later died as a 5 result of the blow. Id. 6 The defendant was convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault which required the 7 government to prove that the Defendant acted recklessly2 when he struck the victim on the top of 8 the head. Id. at<][ 24. The defendant moved for a Judgment of Acquittal, arguing that there was 9 insufficient evidence to find that he acted recklessly. Id. at <][.34. The Supreme Court disagreed and 10 found the trial court properly denied the Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. Id. at<][ 58. 11 The Supreme Court addressed each element of Guam law's definition of recklessness and 12 found evidence that supported the jury's verdict of guilty and implicit finding that the defendant 13 acted recklessly. Chin Sorig, 2012 Guam 21 <][<][ 35-57 (reasoning (1) a reasonable jury could have 14 found the defendant's conduct created a substantial risk that he would cause serious bodily injury 15 or death where the evidence showed the defendant punched the victim on the top of the head, and 16 thus in a vulnerable area, with enough force to cause internal bleeding and render the victim 17 unconscious for several minutes; (2) a reasonable jury could have found the defendant had the 18 requisite awareness of the substantial risk because the People showed that the defendant initiated 19 the confrontation and that after he struck the victim, he reacted in a celebratory and unremorseful 20 manner; and finally, (3) a reasonable jury could have found that the defendant's conduct
21 constituted an unjustifiable and gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person 22 would exercise in the same situation because the defendant struck the victim first and thus 23 · instigated a confrontation without any valid justification"). 24 2 Under Guam law, a person acts 25 "recklessly or is reckless, with respect to attendant circumstances or the result of his conduct when 26 he acts in awareness of a substantial risk that the circumstances exist or that his conduct will cause the result and his disregard is unjustifiable and constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of 27 care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation."
28 9 G.C.A. § 4.30(c).
CF0470-13 People of Guam vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page7 of12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial) 1 Here, the Defendant was convicted of vehicular homicide under 16 G.C.A. § 18.111 which
2 provides, in relevant part "[a] person is guilty of vehicular homicide if ... he or she negligently
3 drives a vehicle, which ... negligence proximately causes death to any person other than himself
4 or herself .... " 16 G.C.A. §18111 (2017) (emphasis added).
5 Under Guam law, a person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence: 6 "with respect to attendant circumstances or the result of his conduct when [1] he 7 should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or that his conduct will cause the result and [2] his failure to be aware of the risk 8 constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person _ would exercise in the situation." 9 10 9 G.C.A. § 4.30(d). The court provided the language of the Section 4.30(d) in the Instructions
11 given to the Jury under Inst~ction 6B. Following the analysis in Chin Song, the Court will address
12 each element of the criminal negligence definition to determine whether evidence was presented
13 from which a reasonable juror could find the defendant acted with criminal negligence here.
14 1. The Defendant should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that 15 circumstances exist or that his conduct will cause the result.
16 In Chin Song, the Supreme Court stated the test for whether a risk is substantial is to
17 "consider both the likelihood that harm will occur and the magnitude of potential harm, mindful
18 that a risk may be 'substantial' even if the odds of the harm occurring are lower than fifty percent."
19 Chin Song, 2012 Guam 21 <][ 35. Further, courts must look to the specific elements of the conduct
20 that create a risk. Id. at<][ 40 (reasoning "while kicking another person may not necessarily involve
21 a substantial risk of death, a trier of fact can find that repeatedly kicking the head of another person
22 can create a substantial risk of death") (citation omitted)). Thus, to determine whether conduct
23 creates a substantial risk, "a court must inquire beyond the general nature of the defendant's
24 conduct and consider the specific conduct in which the defendant engaged." Id. at<][ 41 (citation
25 omitted).
26 As to whether a risk is justifiable or not, the Supreme Court has reasoned "[w]hether a risk
27 is justifiable is determined by weighing the nature and purpose of the defendant's conduct against
CF0470-13 People of Guam vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page 8 of12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial) 1. the risk created by the conduct." Chin Song, 2012 Guam 21 at
CF0470-13 People of Guam vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page 9 of12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial) 1 knew when the Defendant's vehicle started the turn that the moped was going to get hit. The Court
2 finds a reasonable juror could find that the risk of the Defendant's vehicle striking the moped was
3 substantial given the testimony of both Manglona and Lorzano that they both came to an
4 immediate realization that the vehicles would likely collide when they saw the vehicle driven by
5 the Defendant start to turn left.
6 Finally, the Court finds that at trial there was no testimony of why the Defendant made the
7 turn, only that he and his passenger were on their way home from another cousin's house.
8 Therefore, the Court finds that a reasonable juror could find, based on the evidence as presented at
9 trial, that the Defendant's conduct was not justified in light of the substantial risk that he would
10 collide with the moped during the left turn across northbound traffic.
11 2. The Defendant's failure to be aware of the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the 12 ·standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.
13 In determining the standard of care that a reasonable person would adhere to, the Supreme 14 Court has described the reasonable person as, a "reasonable law-abiding person." Chin Song, 2012 15 Guam 21 at<][ 56 (citation omitted). Again, Manglona testified that she saw the vehicle from her 16 position as passenger on the moped. Lorzano similarly testified that he saw the moped from eight 17 to ten car lengths behind the moped and he saw the vehicle driven by the Defendant enter the 18 turning lane and start to turn. From this testimony, and viewing the evidence in the light most 19 favorable to the People, the Court finds that a reasonable juror could have concluded that the 20 Defendant's failure to be aware of the substantial risk that in making the left turn, he Would collide 21 with the moped, constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would 22 have exercised in that situation. The court finds that a reasonable juror could have concluded that 23 since Manglona and Lorzano saw the vehicle turning left across traffic, and since Lorzano could 24 see the moped from eight to ten car lengths behind it, a reasonable person in the Defendant's 25 position would have been aware of the moped, and thus would not have disregarded the substantial 26 and unjustifiable risk of collision created by making the left turn when he did. 27 Ill 28
CF0470-13 People of Guam vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page ~0 of 12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial) 1 ii. Defendant's Motion for New Trial 2 In the Motion for New trial, the Defendant raises arguments similar to those raised in his
3 Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal. See Def's Mot. New Trial 1-2 (Jan. 5, 2018). The People 4 similarly incorporate their arguments in opposition to the Defendant's Motion for Judgment of
5 Acquittal to their opposition to the Motion for a New Trial. See People's Opp'n Mot. New Trial2- 6 3 (Feb. 16, 2018).
7 Under 8 G.C.A. § 110.30(a), "[t]he court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to 8 him if required in the interests of justice." Interpreting this statute, the Supreme Court of Guam has
9 held that "a trial court's discretion to grant a new trial is much broader than its powers to grant a 10 motion for judgment of acquittal." People v. Leslie, 2001 Guam 23 <][ 15. The trial court need not 11 view the evidence in the light most favorable to the people and may weigh the evidence and 12 credibility of witnesses. Id. The trial court has the power to "set aside the verdict, grant a new trial 13 or submit the issues for determination by another jury if it concludes that the evidence 14 preponderates sufficiently heavily against verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice may have 15 occurred." ld. However, motions for a new trial based on the weight of evidence are generally
16 disfavored. ld. at<][ 25. Further, Courts should grant motions for a new trial "sparingly and with
17 caution, doing so only in those really exceptional cases." Id. The Court gave examples of such 18 exceptional cases in Leslie, reasoning "[c]ourts have granted new trial motions based on weight of
19 the evidence only where the credibility of the government's witnesses had been impeached and the 20 government's case had been marked by uncertainties and discrepancies." 3 21 Here, the Defendant argues: 22 "[i]n the case at hand, the~e was no evidence that, with respect to the attendant circumstances, or the result of his conduct, that [the Defendant] was not aware of 23 an unjustifiable risk that the circumstances existed or that his conduct would cause 24 the result. Further, there was no showing that any failure to be aware of the risk constitute [sic] a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person 25 would exercise in the situation."
27 3 See Leslie, 2011 Guam 23 at<_![ 26 (citing United States v. Simms, 508 F.Supp. 1188 (W.D.La.l-980); United States v. 28 Capati, 980 F.Supp. 1114 (S.D. Cal. 1997); United States v. Hurley, 281 F.Supp. 443 (D.Conn.1968)).
CF0470-13 People of Guam vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page 11 of12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial) 1 Def's Reply to People's Opp'n Mot. New Trial 1 (Feb. 20, 2018)'. The Court construes this
2 argument as attacking the weight of evidence offered toward whether the Defendant acted with
3 criminal negligence. As discussed in Section l.b. above, the Court finds the testimony of Doreen
4 Manglona and OwenLorzano was enough for a reasonable juror to find the Defendant acted with
·5 criminal negligence when he made the left turn across traffic on the evening of August 13, 2013
6 and collided with the moped driven by the Aguero. Thus, the Court concludes that the Defendant
7 has not demonstrated sufficient grounds for a new trial. The Defendant only seems to challenge the
8 weight of the evidence of criminal negligence and raises no argument as to how this case presents
9 as an exceptional case which would require a new trial under Leslie and the cases cited therein.
10 Thus, the Defendant's Motion for a New Trial is hereby DENIED.
11 CONCLUSION 12 By preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's
13 Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for a New Trial are hereby DENIED.
14 A Sentencing Hearing is set for June 12, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. The Probation Services
15 Division may submit an update to the Pre-St:1ntencing Investigation Report filed on February 2018.
16 Such update, if any, shall be filed no later than, June 1, 2018. The Parties shall have until, June 8,
17 2018 to file Sentencing Memoranda.
gz £ie_ 18
19 SO ORDERED _____....Mi-Y,.___.._1_,._4___.201.J-f'118,_·_ . 20
21 The Honorable Anita; A. Sulmla Judge, Superior Court of Guam 22
CF0470-13 People of Guam vs. Max Theodore Dizon Manabat Page 12 of12 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial)