Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cr-00164/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cr-00164-68/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Georgina Carrillo Ayala
Defendant
Enrique Buenavida
Defendant
Jose Francisco Buenavida
Defendant
Canas
Defendant
Jose Antonio Pantoja Estrada
Defendant
Jerry Curtis Foster
Defendant
Luis Armando Rios Garcia
Defendant
Hector Gomez-Garcia
Defendant
Kelly Duane Hughes
Defendant
Bart Richard Hughes
Defendant
Francisco Loya-Solarzano
Defendant
Filiberto Madrigal
Defendant
Manny
Defendant
Roberto Mercado-Rangel
Defendant
Pancho
Defendant
Pistola
Defendant
Jose Manuel Rodriguez
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff
Uncle
Defendant
Elias Hernandez Valencia
Defendant

Document Text:

1 STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

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 

Acting 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. 

LNU (aka FRANCISCO LOYA-SOLARZANO, aka 

“Uncle,” aka “Pancho”) 

ELIAS HERNANDEZ VALENCIA (aka “Pistola”) 

FILIBERTO MADRIGAL (aka “Fily”) 

LUIS ARMANDO RIOS GARCIA (aka “Pee Wee”) 

GEORGINA CARRILLO AYALA 

HECTOR GOMEZ-GARCIA 

JOSE FRANCISCO BUENAVIDA (aka “Canas”) 

ENRIQUE BUENAVIDA 

JOSE ANTONIO PANTOJA ESTRADA 

KELLY DUANE HUGHES 

JERRY CURTIS FOSTER 

BART RICHARD HUGHES 

JOSE MANUEL RODRIGUEZ (aka “Manny”) 

ROBERTO MERCADO-RANGEL, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2:18-CR-164-KJM 

STIPULATION REGARDING 

EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER 

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND 

ORDER 

DATE: December 9, 2021 

TIME: 10:00 a.m. 

COURT: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller 

This case was set for status conference on December 9, 2021. The undersigned parties now 

request to move the status conferences to February 14, 2022,, and to exclude time under the Speedy 

Trial Act, pursuant to the Court’s General Orders, in the interest of public health and safety, and 

pursuant to Local Code T4 as well, for the reasons set forth below. 

On May 13, 2020, this Court issued General Order 618, suspending jury trials in the Eastern 

District of California “until further notice.” Under this order, a judge “may exercise his or her authority 

Case 2:18-cr-00164-KJM Document 404 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 5
 

2 STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

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 

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 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2020). 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 

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 

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 

Case 2:18-cr-00164-KJM Document 404 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 5
 

3 STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

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 

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 “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 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 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 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

1. By this stipulation, the following defendants now move to continue the status conference 

in this matter to February 14, 2022,, and to exclude time between December 9, 2021, and February 14, 

2022,, under Local Code T4, as well as under the Court’s General Orders: 

a) ELIAS HERNANDEZ VALENCIA (aka “Pistola”) 

b) FILIBERTO MADRIGAL (aka “Fily”) 

c) JOSE ANTONIO PANTOJA ESTRADA 

d) JOSE MANUEL RODRIGUEZ (aka “Manny”) 

2. These parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: 

Case 2:18-cr-00164-KJM Document 404 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 5
 

4 STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

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 

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

includes seven compact discs, containing over 400 pages of investigative reports, surveillance 

photographs, surveillance video, and T-III wiretap transcripts. All of this discovery has been 

either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying. 

b) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to continue to review discovery, 

conduct investigation, communicate with the government and their respective clients, discuss 

possible resolutions, and prepare for trial. The continuance is necessary to ensure continuity of 

counsel and for defense preparation. 

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

continuance would deny them 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) 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. 

f) As to both cases, for the purpose of computing time for these defendants under 

the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time 

period of December 9, 2021 to February 14, 2022,, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 

the Court’s General Orders, in the interest of public health and safety, and 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. 

3. Regarding defendant JOSE FRANCISCO BUENAVIDA (aka “Canas”), his counsel and 

the government agree and stipulate, and ask that the Court find, that the defendant’s whereabouts remain 

unknown, despite the exercise of due diligence. The parties ask that the Court find for the purposes of 

computing time for this defendant under the Speedy Trial Act, within which trial must commence, the 

time period of December 9, 2021 to February 14, 2022,, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 

U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(3)(A) & (B) [Local Code M]. 

Case 2:18-cr-00164-KJM Document 404 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 5
 

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

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. Defendants KELLY DUANE HUGHES, JERRY CURTIS FOSTER, BART RICHARD 

HUGHES, ROBERTO MERCADO-RANGEL, GEORGINA CARRILLO AYALA, and LUIS 

ARMANDO RIOS GARCIA (aka “Pee Wee”) have entered guilty pleas in this matter and been 

sentenced. 

5. The defendants not mentioned in this stipulation have not yet appeared in this matter. 

6. 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: December 9, 2021 PHILLIP A. TALBERT 

Acting United States Attorney 

/s/ JAMES R. CONOLLY 

 JAMES R. CONOLLY 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Dated: December 9, 2021 /s/ HAYES GABLE III 

HAYES GABLE III 

Counsel for Defendant 

ELIAS HERNANDEZ VALENCIA 

Dated: December 10, 2021 /s/ TONI WHITE 

 TONI WHITE 

Counsel for Defendant 

FILIBERTO MADRIGAL 

Dated: December 10, 2021 /s/ OLAF HEDBERG 

 OLAF HEDBERG 

Counsel for Defendant 

JOSE FRANCISCO BUENAVIDA 

Dated: December 10, 2021 /s/ DINA SANTOS 

 DINA SANTOS 

Counsel for Defendant 

JOSE PANTOJA ESTRADA 

Dated: December 9, 2021 /s/ DAVID D. FISCHER

 DAVID D. FISCHER

Counsel for Defendant 

JOSE RODRIGUEZ 

FINDINGS AND ORDER 

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED. The status conference in this matter is set for February 14, 

2022, and the time between December 9, 2021, and February 14, 2022, is excluded. 

DATED: February 10, 2022. 

Case 2:18-cr-00164-KJM Document 404 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 5