Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cr-00255/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cr-00255-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus James Tatum
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant United States Attorney

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401

Fresno, Ca 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4000

Facsimile: (559) 497-4099

Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARCUS JAMES TATUM,

Defendant.

Case No: 1:20-cr-00255-DAD-BAM

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE APRIL 27, 2022,

STATUS CONFERENCE TO JULY 13, 2022;

AND ORDER

Ctrm: 8

Hon. Barbara A. McAuliffe

This case is set for a status conference on April 27, 2022. Dkt. 22. On May 13, 2020, this Court 

issued General Order 618, which suspended all jury trials in the Eastern District of California “until 

further notice.” Under General Order 618, a judge “may exercise his or her authority to continue 

matters, excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act with reference to the court’s prior General Order 611 

issued on March 17, 2020 . . . with additional findings to support the exclusion in the Judge’s 

discretion.” General Order 618, ¶ 6 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2020). In addition, any judge “may order caseby-case exceptions” to General Order 618’s provisions “at the discretion of that Judge or upon the 

Case 1:20-cr-00255-TLN-BAM Document 24 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

request of counsel, after consultation with counsel and the Clerk of the Court to the extent such an order 

will impact court staff and operations.” General Order 618, ¶ 7 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2020). This and 

previous General Orders were entered to address public health concerns related to COVID-19.

Although the General Orders address the district-wide health concern, the Supreme Court has 

emphasized that the Speedy Trial Act’s end-of-justice provision “counteract[s] substantive 

openendedness with procedural strictness,” “demand[ing] on-the-record findings” in a particular case. 

Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 509 (2006). “[W]ithout on-the-record findings, there can be no 

exclusion under” § 3161(h)(7)(A). Id. at 507. Moreover, any such failure cannot be harmless. Id. at 

509; see also United States v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a 

judge ordering an ends-of-justice continuance must set forth explicit findings on the record “either orally 

or in writing”).

Based on the plain text of the Speedy Trial Act—which Zedner emphasizes as both mandatory 

and inexcusable—General Orders 611, 612, 617, and 618 require specific supplementation. Ends-ofjustice continuances are excludable only if “the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his 

findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and 

the defendant in a speedy trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Moreover, no such period is excludable 

unless “the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reason or finding that 

the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public 

and the defendant in a speedy trial.” Id.

The General Orders exclude delay in the “ends of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code 

T4). Although the Speedy Trial Act does not directly address continuances stemming from pandemics, 

natural disasters, or other emergencies, this Court has discretion to order a continuance in such 

circumstances. For example, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a two-week ends-of-justice continuance 

following Mt. St. Helens’ eruption. Furlow v. United States, 644 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1981). The court 

recognized that the eruption created “appreciable difficulty” for the trial to proceed. Id. at 767-69; see 

also United States v. Correa, 182 F. Supp. 326, 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing Furlow to exclude time 

following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the resultant public emergency). 

Case 1:20-cr-00255-TLN-BAM Document 24 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The coronavirus is posing a similar, albeit much more enduring, “appreciable difficulty” to the 

prompt proceedings mandated by the statutory rules. Recently, the Ninth Circuit enumerated a “nonexhaustive” list of seven factors it found to be “relevant” in considering ends-of-justice Speedy Trial Act 

continuances “in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.” United States v. Olsen, --- F.3d ---, 2021 WL 

1589359 at *7 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2021). That non-exhaustive list includes: (1) whether a defendant is 

detained pending trial; (2) how long a defendant has been detained; (3) whether a defendant has invoked 

speedy trial rights since the case’s inception; (4) whether a defendant, if detained, belongs to a 

population that is particularly susceptible to complications if infected with the virus; (5) the seriousness 

of the charges defendant faces, and in particular whether the defendant is accused of violent crimes; (6) 

whether there is a reasons to suspect recidivism if the charges against the defendant are dismissed; and 

(7) whether the district court has the ability to safely conduct a trial. Id.

In light of the foregoing, this Court should consider the following case-specific facts in finding 

excludable delay appropriate in this particular case under the ends-of-justice exception, § 3161(h)(7) 

(Local Code T4). If continued, this Court should designate a new date for this matter’s next status 

conference. United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting any pretrial 

continuance must be “specifically limited in time”).

STIPULATION

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective attorneys of record, Assistant 

United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and Monica L. Bermudez, counsel 

for defendant Marcus James Tatum (“defendant”), that this action’s Wednesday, April 27, 2022 status 

conference be continued to Wednesday, July 13, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. The parties likewise ask the 

court to endorse this stipulation by way of formal order.

The parties base this stipulation on good cause. Specifically,

1. Defendant was arraigned on May 28, 2021. Dkt. 4. On this same date, the parties also filed a 

stipulation and proposed protective order regarding the production of unredacted discovery

Case 1:20-cr-00255-TLN-BAM Document 24 Filed 04/18/22 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that includes confidential information about third parties. Dkt. 3. On May 28, 2021, the 

court endorsed this stipulation by way of formal order. Dkt 7. Defense counsel regarding 

this matter was appointed to represent defendant on June 4, 2021. Dkt. 9. 

2. Pursuant to the aforementioned protective order, the government produced discovery to the 

defense on June 7, 2021, which includes not just paper discovery but also voluminous data 

contained in certain electronic devices. Although the defense continues its review of this 

discovery, the parties nevertheless agreed that it would be prudent for the government to 

draft and present a plea offer to the defense for its review. Counsel for the government

delivered a draft plea agreement to the defense earlier this week. 

3. At or near the completion of the defense’s review of discovery, it may seek to analyze 

electronic evidence relevant to defendant’s charges pursuant to Section 3509(m) of the Adam 

Walsh Act. This evidence is located at the FBI’s Bakersfield Office. Counsel for the 

government will assist with any necessary logistics attendant to this review upon the 

defense’s request. 

4. Counsel for the defense is awaiting a verdict following a multi-week trial regarding a matter 

docketed in state court. Depending on the jury’s verdict, a second phase of trial may 

commence soon thereafter. After the second phase of this trial concludes, the defense will be 

able to review the plea offer and conduct additional investigation and analysis of discovery 

relating to the same. The parties estimate that a continuance of the April 27, 2022 status 

conference is necessary in order to complete these analyses and engage in meaningful future 

negotiations regarding a potential resolution to this case in advance of trial. During this time 

counsel for the government will likewise search for potential supplemental discovery to 

produce. 

5. The parties anticipate that they will be prepared to set a trial date, or alternatively a change of 

plea date, by the continued status conference on July 13, 2022.

6. The parties therefore stipulate that the period of time from April 27, 2022, through July 13, 

2022, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and 

Case 1:20-cr-00255-TLN-BAM Document 24 Filed 04/18/22 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(iv) because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at the parties’ request on the 

basis of the Court’s finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh 

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: April 14, 2022

By:

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

/s/ Brian W. Enos

Brian W. Enos

Assistant United States Attorney

(As authorized 4/15/22)

Dated: April 15, 2022 By: /s/ Monica L. Bermudez

Monica L. Bermudez, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant

 Marcus James Tatum

Case 1:20-cr-00255-TLN-BAM Document 24 Filed 04/18/22 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that the status hearing currently set for April 27, 2022, at 1:00 pm is continued 

until July 13, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the period of time from April 27, 2022, through July 13, 

2022, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) 

because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendants’ request on the basis of the 

Court’s finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the 

public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cr-00255-TLN-BAM Document 24 Filed 04/18/22 Page 6 of 6