Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cr-00239/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cr-00239-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Patrick Breedlove III
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. 

JAMES PATRICK BREEDLOVE III, 

Defendant. 

Case No: 1:22-cr-00239 JLT/SKO 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE JANUARY 18, 

2023 STATUS CONFERENCE TO MAY 3, 2023; 

ORDER

Ctrm: 8 

Hon. Sheila K. Oberto 

 

This case is set for an initial status conference on January 18, 2023. Dkt. 15. 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 

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

Case 1:22-cr-00239-JLT-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/10/23 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 

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. 

On May 26, 2021, and in part “given the progress in vaccination programs and the resulting 

lowering of risk to public health as evidenced by reductions in rates of infection, hospitalization and 

death due to COVID-19”, this Court issued General Order 631. Within General Order 631, this Court: 

(1) reopened the court to the public, (2) gave each judge the authority to “determine whether to hold 

proceedings over which that Judge presides in person in a courtroom or by telephone or 

videoconference” and (3) if “any Judge [elects to conduct] any criminal proceeding by telephone or 

video conference . . . [the Court] continues to authorize the use of telephone or video conference with a 

defendant’s consent.” General Order 631, ¶ ¶ 1, 4 and 5. (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2021). The court’s above 

protocols were recently extended through March 16, 2023. General Order 656 (E.D. Cal. December 18, 

2022). 

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 

Case 1:22-cr-00239-JLT-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/10/23 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 

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). 

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 tahere 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”). 

/// 

/// 

Case 1:22-cr-00239-JLT-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/10/23 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 

STIPULATION 

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

United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and John F. Garland, counsel for 

defendant James Patrick Breedlove III (“defendant”), that this action’s Wednesday, January 18, 2023 

status conference be continued to Wednesday, May 3, 2023, 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. The grand jury returned an indictment regarding this matter on September 1, 2022. Dkt. 1. 

Since that time, the parties agreed to and presented to the court a stipulation and proposed 

protective order regarding the production of confidential information regarding third parties 

without redactions, which the court endorsed by way of formal order on November 7, 2022. 

Dkt. 12. The government then prepared and delivered an initial set of discovery to defense 

counsel afterwards, and within the time limits set forth by Eastern District (Cal.) Local Rule 

16-440. The defense is and has been reviewing discovery thus far provided. 

2. The government currently believes all discovery has been produced pursuant to Rule 16 or 

otherwise made available for the defense’s inspection and review pursuant to the Adam 

Walsh Act. The government is nevertheless following up with law enforcement to determine 

the extent supplemental discovery exists. If the government identifies additional information 

that should be produced as supplemental discovery, the government will promptly produce it 

to defense counsel in accord with Rule 16. 

3. As defense counsel completes his analysis of the discovery produced in this case, counsel for 

the government will work with the defense and the FBI’s Bakersfield office to ensure that it 

is able to also timely review, upon its request, any electronic evidence in this case in accord 

with relevant provisions of the Adam Walsh Act. As referenced in the Indictment, this case 

involves multiple electronic devices, each of which containing voluminous data. 

4. By the time of the continued status conference and as all discovery is obtained, produced and 

timely reviewed, the parties further intend to explore the extent this case can be resolved 

Case 1:22-cr-00239-JLT-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/10/23 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 

prior to trial. 

5. Defense counsel needs more time to complete its investigation and determine the extent an 

expert should be hired. 

6. The parties therefore stipulate that the period of time from January 18, 2023 through May 3, 

2023 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 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: January 10, 2023 

By: 

PHILLIP A. TALBERT 

United States Attorney 

/s/ Brian W. Enos 

 Brian W. Enos 

Assistant United States Attorney 

(As authorized 1/10/23) 

Dated: January 10, 2023 By: /s/ John F. Garland 

 John F. Garland 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 James Patrick Breedlove III 

 

Case 1:22-cr-00239-JLT-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/10/23 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 January 18, 2023, at 1:00 pm is 

continued until May 3, 2023, at 1:00 pm. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the period of time from January 18, 2023, through May 

3, 2023 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 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.

Dated: 

Honorable Sheila K. Oberto 

United States Magistrate Judge 

1/10/2022

Case 1:22-cr-00239-JLT-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/10/23 Page 6 of 6