Former President Donald Trump has requested a delay in his sentencing for falsifying business records, specifically regarding hush money payments to a porn star. This request gained some support after prosecutors did not take a stance in a response released on Monday.

Trump’s legal team informed Judge Juan Merchan that they want his sentencing, currently set for September 18, deferred until after the November elections. They contend that if sentencing occurs before a ruling on Trump’s appeal against his conviction—based on a recent Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity—then appellate courts should address the matter before any sentencing takes place.

The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg did not oppose this request, which gives Judge Merchan fewer reasons to deny it, although the final decision rests with him.

In a letter to Merchan, prosecutors pointed out that there are “strong reasons” against allowing Trump to delay an appeal regarding immunity until after sentencing, which contradicts Trump’s arguments.

However, they indicated they would let the court decide whether a postponement is necessary to prevent complications from an appellate court decision that disagrees with the sentencing proceedings.

Merchan has indicated that he intends to make a ruling on Trump’s request to dismiss the conviction on September 16.

Prosecutors emphasized that numerous government entities must undertake “significant public safety and logistical steps” to prepare for Trump’s court appearance on September 18. They pointed out that Trump’s intention to appeal prior to sentencing could render these preparations pointless if Merchan adheres to the current schedule but an appeals court interjects later.

Trump was found guilty on May 30 on 34 felony charges related to falsifying business records to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. Prosecutors contended that Trump orchestrated a $130,000 payment to silence porn star Stormy Daniels about an alleged affair with him in 2006—a claim he denies. The Manhattan jury unanimously concluded that Trump falsified records concerning reimbursement for this payment.

The essence of Trump’s argument is that a specific segment of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity—which was endorsed by five out of the six justices appointed by Republicans—means that evidence presented during Trump’s trial that pertained to presidential actions should not have been shown to the jury.

Bragg’s office maintains that the Supreme Court ruling does not apply to Trump’s case, and even if it did suggest excluding certain evidence, that alone would not justify overturning the jury’s verdict.