Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cr-00233/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cr-00233-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shana Gaviola
Defendant
Julio Sandoval
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

STIPULATION REGARDING EXDLUCATE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT - 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 

MICHEAL TIERNEY 

Assistant United States Attorney 

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401 

Fresno, CA 93721 

Telephone: (559) 497-4000 

Facsimile (559) 497-4099 

Attorney for Plaintiff, 

United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

****** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SHANA GAVIOLA, and 

JULIO SANDOVAL 

 Defendant’s.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO.: 1:22-CR-00233-JLT-SKO 

STIPULATION REGARDING 

EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER 

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; AND ORDER 

DATE; October 5, 2022 

TIME: 1:00 p.m. 

COURT: Honorable Sheila K. Oberto 

) 

BACKGROUND 

 This case is set for status conference on October 5, 2022. On May 13, 2020, this Court 

issued General Order 618, which suspends 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 case-by-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 will impact court staff and operations.” General Order 618, ¶ 7 

Case 1:22-cr-00233-JLT-SKO Document 30 Filed 09/30/22 Page 1 of 5
STIPULATION REGARDING EXDLUCATE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT - 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

(E.D. Cal. May 13, 2020). This, previous, and subsequent 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 Trail Act’s end-of-justice provision “counteract[s] substantive 

open-endedness 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, 219 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 Trail Act—which Zedner emphasizes as both 

mandatory and inexcusable—General Orders 611, 612, 617, and 618 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.” 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 

end -of justice continuance following Mr. 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 poses a similar, albeit more enduring, “appreciable difficulty” to the 

prompt proceedings mandated by the statutory rules. Recently, the Ninth Circuit enumerated a 

“non-exhaustive” 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.

Case 1:22-cr-00233-JLT-SKO Document 30 Filed 09/30/22 Page 2 of 5
STIPULATION REGARDING EXDLUCATE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT - 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

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 charged a defendant faces, and 

in particular whether the defendant is accused of violent crimes; (6) whether there is a reason 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 lights 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 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 though its counsel of record, and Defendant, 

by and through Defendant’s counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on October 5, 2022. 

2. By this stipulation, Defendant now moves to continue the status until January 18, 

2023, and to exclude time between October 5, 2022, and January 18, 2023, under 18 

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

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

a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case 

includes body camera footage, police reports, cell phone extraction, photographs, and 

other evidence. All this discovery is being produced directly to counsel and/or made 

available for inspection and copying. 

b) Counsel for Defendant desires additional time to review the discovery, 

conduct 

Case 1:22-cr-00233-JLT-SKO Document 30 Filed 09/30/22 Page 3 of 5
STIPULATION REGARDING EXDLUCATE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT - 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

independent investigation, consult with his client, and pursue a pre-trial resolution of the 

case. 

c) Counsel for Defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested 

continuance would deny him/her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, 

taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 

d) The government does not object to the continuance. 

e) 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 September 30, 2022 

to January 18, 2023, 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 Defendant’s 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. 

f) 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 defendant in a trial 

within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. 

g) 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 5, 2022, to 

January 18, 2023, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 

(h)(7)(A), B(i) and (ii) [Local Code T4] because the case is so unusual or so complex, 

due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel 

questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial 

proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section and 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. 

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

Case 1:22-cr-00233-JLT-SKO Document 30 Filed 09/30/22 Page 4 of 5
STIPULATION REGARDING EXDLUCATE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT - 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

the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from period within which 

a trial must commence. 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: September 27, 2022, PHILLIP A. TALBERT 

 United States Attorney 

 /s/ Michael Tierney_________________ 

 MICHEAL TIERNEY 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

Dated: September 27, 2022, /s/ Anthony P. Capozzi______________ 

 ANTHONY P. CAPOZZI, Counsel for 

 Defendant Shana Gaviola 

Dated: September 27, 2022, /s/ Griffin M. Estes______________ 

 GRIFFIN M. ESTES, Counsel for 

 Defendant Julio Sandoval 

 

ORDER 

 IT IS SO ORDERED that the status conference is continued from October 5, 2022, to 

January 18, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. Time is excluded 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A), B(iv). 

IT IS SO ORDER. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________________________ 

 Hon. Sheila K. Oberto 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

9/30/2022

Case 1:22-cr-00233-JLT-SKO Document 30 Filed 09/30/22 Page 5 of 5