Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00260/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00260-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cesar Pena
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 1

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS

AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

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

JESSICA A. MASSEY

Assistant United States Attorney

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401

Fresno, CA 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.

CESAR PENA,

 Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:19-CR-00260-NONE-SKO

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE 

TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; 

FINDINGS AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS 

CONFERENCE

DATE: May 18, 2020

TIME: 1:00p.m.

COURT: Hon. Sheila K. Oberto

This case is set for status conference on May 18, 2020. 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 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 COVID19.

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 

Case 1:19-cr-00260-DAD-SKO Document 25 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 2

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS

AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

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

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 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 1:19-cr-00260-DAD-SKO Document 25 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 3

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS

AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

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

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through 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 on May 18, 2020. 

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until July 20, 

2020, and to exclude time between May 18, 2020, and July 20, 2020, under 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 has 

been produced to counsel.

b) Counsel for the defendant desires additional time to consult with his client about a 

possible resolution to this matter and to otherwise prepare for trial.

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

continuance would deny him 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) In addition to the public health concerns cited by General Order 617, and 

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

this case because counsel or other relevant individuals have been encouraged to telework and 

minimize personal contact to the greatest extent possible. It will be difficult to avoid personal 

contact should the hearing proceed.

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 May 18, 2020 to July 20, 2020, 

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 

Case 1:19-cr-00260-DAD-SKO Document 25 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 4

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS

AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

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

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 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: May 11, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

/s/ JESSICA A. MASSEY

JESSICA A. MASSEY

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: May 11, 2020 /s/ MICHAEL McKNEELY

MICHAEL McKNEELY

Counsel for Defendant 

CESAR PENA

FINDINGS AND ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cr-00260-DAD-SKO Document 25 Filed 05/11/20 Page 4 of 4