Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cr-00149/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cr-00149-26/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Andrade
Defendant
Rigoberto Nunez
Defendant
Oscar Rodriguez
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS AND EXCLUDE 

TIME; FINDINGS AND ORDER

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 

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

JAMES R. CONOLLY 

Assistant United States Attorney 

501 I Street, Suite 10-100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 554-2700 

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

United States of America 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

RIGOBERTO NUNEZ; 

OSCAR ANDRADE; AND 

OSCAR RODRIGUEZ, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2:17-CR-00149-TLN 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS 

CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDE TIME PERIODS 

UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND 

ORDER 

DATE: October 15, 2020 

TIME: 9:30 a.m. 

COURT: Hon. Troy L. Nunley 

This case was set for a status conference on October 15, 2020. By this stipulation, the parties 

request that the Court continue the status conference to December 10, 2020, and to exclude time under 

the Court’s General Orders, as well under Local Codes T4 and M, for the reasons set forth below. 

On April 17, 2020, this Court issued General Order 617, which suspends all jury trials in the 

Eastern District of California scheduled to commence before June 15, 2020, and allows district judges to 

continue all criminal matters to a date after June 1. 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 

Case 2:17-cr-00149-TLN Document 106 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 5
 

2 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS AND EXCLUDE 

TIME; FINDINGS AND ORDER

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 

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, and 617 require specific supplementation. Ends-of-justice 

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 under the ends-ofjustice exception, § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4). 1 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”).

1

 The parties note that General Order 612 acknowledges that a district judge may make 

“additional findings to support the exclusion” at the judge’s discretion. General Order 612, ¶ 5 (E.D. 

Cal. March 18, 2020). 

Case 2:17-cr-00149-TLN Document 106 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 5
 

3 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS AND EXCLUDE 

TIME; FINDINGS AND ORDER

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 

1. By this stipulation, the United States and defendant Rigoberto Nunez, through his 

counsel, Preciliano Martinez, and counsel for Oscar Rodriguez, David Fischer, move to continue the 

status conference until December 10, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between October 15, 2020 

and December 10, 2020, under Local Code T4, for Mr. Nunez, and under Local Code M, for Mr. 

Rodriguez, and under the Court’s General Orders for all parties. 

2. Defendant Oscar Andrade has entered a change of plea in his matter and been sentenced, 

and therefore does not join in this stipulation. 

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

a) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to continue to conduct 

investigation, and to otherwise prepare for trial. The government has represented that it has 

produced discovery in the form of investigative reports, photographs, and audio files, which the 

defendants need time to review, discuss with their counsel, and pursue investigation. The 

government has also represented that it has made available to defense counsel additional 

electronic surveillance discovery, which the defendants will also need time to review. 

b) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested 

continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking 

into account the exercise of due diligence. 

c) The government does not oppose this request. 

d) At present, the whereabouts of Mr. Rodriguez are unknown, and he is therefore 

unavailable. 

e) 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. 

f) With regard to Mr. Nunez, 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 

October 15, 2020 to December 10, 2020, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to this Court’s 

General Orders, due to the public health concerns created by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well to 

Case 2:17-cr-00149-TLN Document 106 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 5
 

4 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS AND EXCLUDE 

TIME; FINDINGS AND ORDER

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 

18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] 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. 

g) With regard to Mr. Rodriguez, 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 October 15, 2020 to December 10, 2020, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to this 

Court’s General Orders, due to the public health concerns created by the COVID-19 pandemic, 

as well to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(3)(A) & (B) [Local Code M]: unavailability of a defendant. 

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. 

Dated: October 13, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

/s/ JAMES R. CONOLLY 

 JAMES R. CONOLLY 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Dated: October 13, 2020 /s/ Preciliano Martinez

PRECILIANO MARTINEZ 

Counsel for Defendant 

Rigoberto Nunez 

Dated: October 13, 2020 /s/ David Fischer

DAVID FISCHER 

Counsel for Defendant 

Oscar Rodriguez 

 

Case 2:17-cr-00149-TLN Document 106 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 5
 

5 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS AND EXCLUDE 

TIME; FINDINGS AND ORDER

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 

FINDINGS AND ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Court, having received, read, and considered the parties’ 

stipulation, and good cause appearing therefore, adopts the parties’ stipulation in its entirety as its order. 

The Court specifically finds the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny counsel 

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 

The Court finds the ends of justice are served by granting the requested continuance and outweigh the 

best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. The Court also finds that the whereabouts of 

Oscar Rodriguez remain unknown, and he is therefore unavailable. 

The Court orders the time from the date the parties stipulated, up to and including December 10, 

2020, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be 

commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) (Local Code 

T4), with respect to Rigoberto Nunez, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(3)(A) & (B) [Local Code 

M], with respect to Oscar Rodriguez, as well as under the Court’s General Orders related to the COVID19 pandemic, with respect to all parties. It is further ordered that the October 15, 2020 status conference 

shall be continued until December 10, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED this 14th day of October, 2020. 

Case 2:17-cr-00149-TLN Document 106 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 5