Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-mj-00002/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-mj-00002-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jhovanny Delgado-Marcelo
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff
Pao Vang
Defendant
Johnny Xiong
Defendant

Document Text:

1 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

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

30

31

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

THOMAS M. NEWMAN

Assistant United States Attorneys

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4000

Facsimile: (559) 497-4099

Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PAO VANG,

a/k/a “CLOWNSY,” 

JHOVANNY DELGADO-MARCELO

a/k/a “JHIO,” and 

JOHNNY XIONG,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-mj-2-SKO

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE; 

ORDER THEREON

This case is set for a hearing on April 17, 2020, which the parties stipulate to continue to June 5, 

2020, for the reasons set forth below. On March 17, 2020, this Court issued General Order 611, which 

suspends all jury trials in the Eastern District of California scheduled to commence before May 1, 2020. 

This General Order was entered to address public health concerns related to COVID-19. 

Although the General Order addresses 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. 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”).

Case 1:20-mj-00002-SKO Document 30 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 5
2 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

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

30

31

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

and inexcusable—the General Order requires 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 Order excludes 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). 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, the United States 

Attorney for the Eastern District of California and the defendants, PAO VANG, a/k/a “CLOWNSY,” 

JHOVANNY DELGADO-MARCELO, a/k/a “JHIO,” and JOHNNY XIONG, by and through their 

counsel, hereby agree and stipulate to continue the status hearing and preliminary hearing in this matter, 

which is currently set for April 17, 2020. The parties request that the Court continue the date for the 

Case 1:20-mj-00002-SKO Document 30 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 5
3 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

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

30

31

defendants’ preliminary hearing or arraignment to June 5, 2020, at 2:00 pm. The parties also request 

that pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“FRCP”) 5.1(d), the time limits set forth in FRCP 

5.1(c) be extended through June 5, 2020. The parties agree that, taking into account the public interest in 

prompt disposition of criminal cases, good cause exists for this extension. 

The defendant also agrees to exclude for this period of time any time limits applicable under 18 

U.S.C. § 3161. The parties agree that the continuance represents the reasonable time necessary for 

effective preparation of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)-(B)(iv). In support thereof, the parties 

stipulate that:

1. The government provided the Defendants with discovery consisting of recordings, 

photographs, and more than 1,000 pages documents. This consisted of both initial and

supplemental discovery that was provided on February 20, and March 2, 2020, respectively. 

The defense needs time to review these reports and it is in the interest of the parties to delay 

the upcoming hearing until after the discovery is produced. 

2. As a consequence, the parties agree that a continuance until June 5, 2020, is warranted. 

3. The parties stipulate that the period of time from April 17, 2020, through June 5, 2020, 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 STIPULATED.

Dated: April 3, 2020

By:

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

/s/ THOMAS NEWMAN

THOMAS NEWMAN

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: April 3, 2020 /s/ Benjamin A. Gerson____ 

Attorney for Defendant

JHOVANNY DELGADO-MARCELO

Case 1:20-mj-00002-SKO Document 30 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 5
4 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

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

30

31

Dated: April 3, 2020 /s/ Robert Lamanuzzi____ 

Attorney for Defendant

JOHNNY XIONG

Dated: April 3, 2020 /s/ Harry Drandell____ 

Attorney for Defendant

PAO VANG

Case 1:20-mj-00002-SKO Document 30 Filed 04/07/20 Page 4 of 5
5 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

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

30

31

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ preliminary hearing or arraignment is continued from 

April 17, 2020, at 2 pm until June 5, 2020, at 2 pm before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the period of time from April 17, 2020, through June 5, 

2020, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv), and Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 5.1(d), 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 defendants in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-mj-00002-SKO Document 30 Filed 04/07/20 Page 5 of 5