Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00003-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Agricultural Contracting Services Association
Defendant
American Labor Alliance
Defendant
Marcus Asay
Defendant
Antonio Gastelum
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE ARRAIGNMENT AND STATUS CONFERENCE

CASE NO.: 1:19-CR-00003-DAD-BAM

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

ANTHONY P. CAPOZZI, CSBN: 068525

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY P. CAPOZZI

1233 W. SHAW AVE., SUITE 102

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93711

PHONE: (559) 221-0200

FAX: (559) 221-7997

EMAIL: Anthony@capozzilawoffices.com

www.capozzilawoffices.com

ATTORNEY FOR Defendant,

MARCUS ASAY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

* * * * * *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AGRICULTURAL CONTRACTING 

SERVICES ASSOCIATION, dba 

AMERICAN LABOR ALLIANCE, MARCUS 

ASAY, and ANTONIO GASTELUM,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:19-CR-00003-DAD-BAM

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

CONTINUE ARRAIGNMENT AND 

STATUS CONFERENCE

Date: November 23, 2020

Time: 1:00 p.m.

Courtroom: 8

TO: THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY:

This case is set for arraignment on the superseding indictment and status conference on 

November 30, 2020. On May 13, 2020, this Court issued General Order 618, supplementing 

prior orders issued on March 12, 17, 18, 30, and April 17, 2020, addressing COVID-19 and 

attendant public health advisories. This court declared a judicial emergency on April 9, 2020, 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3174, and the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council’s Order of April 16, 2020, 

continuing this court’s judicial emergency for an additional one-year period and suspending the 

time limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c) until May 2, 2021.

Case 1:19-cr-00003-DAD Document 49 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 4
2

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE ARRAIGNMENT AND STATUS CONFERENCE

CASE NO.: 1:19-CR-00003-DAD-BAM

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

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-therecord findings, there can be no exclusion under” § 3161(h)(7)(A). Id. at 507. And 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—the General Orders 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 made it impossible for the trial 

to proceed. Id. at 767-68; 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 more enduring, 

barrier to the prompt proceedings mandated by the statutory rules. 

In light of the societal context created by the foregoing, this Court should consider the 

following case-specific facts in finding excludable delay appropriate in this particular case

Case 1:19-cr-00003-DAD Document 49 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 4
3

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE ARRAIGNMENT AND STATUS CONFERENCE

CASE NO.: 1:19-CR-00003-DAD-BAM

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

under the ends-of-justice exception, § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4). If continued, this Court 

should designate a new date for the 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

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants,

by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on November 23, 

2020. 

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the arraignment on the 

superseding indictment and status conference until February 10, 2021, and to exclude time 

between November 23, 2020, and February 10, 2021, under Local Code T4. 

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a) The government does not object to the continuance. 

b) In addition to the public health concerns cited by General Orders 611 and 

presented by the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, an ends-of-justice delay is particularly 

apt in this case because:

(i) Defense counsel is undergoing surgery on November 13, 2020, and 

requires six to eight weeks for recovery.

c) Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by

continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendants

in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. 

d) For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 

U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of November 

23, 2020, to February 10, 2021, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 

3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] 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 

defendants in a speedy trial.

Case 1:19-cr-00003-DAD Document 49 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 4
4

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE ARRAIGNMENT AND STATUS CONFERENCE

CASE NO.: 1:19-CR-00003-DAD-BAM

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

4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other 

provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the 

period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: November 10, 2020 By: /s/ Michael G. Tierney

MICHAEL G. TIERNEY

Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: November 10, 2020 By: /s/ Anthony P. Capozzi

ANTHONY P. CAPOZZI

Attorney for Defendants AGRICULTURAL 

CONTRACTING SERVICES ASSOCIATION, dba 

AMERICAN LABOR ALLIANCE and MARCUS 

ASAY

DATED: November 10, 2020 By: /s/Roger T. Nuttall

ROGER T. NUTTALL

Attorney for Defendant ANTONIO GASTELUM

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED that the arraignment on the superseding indictment and status 

conference is continued from November 23, 2020, to February 10, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. before 

Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Time is excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c) 

and (h)(7)(A), B(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cr-00003-DAD Document 49 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 4