Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00133/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00133-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Frenchie McGriff
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Acting United States Attorney

BRIAN W. ENOS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT FRENCHIE McGRIFF,

Defendant.

Case No: 1:19-cr-00133 NONE/SKO

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE APRIL 21, 2021

STATUS CONFERENCE TO JULY 7, 2021; 

ORDER

Ctrm: 7

Hon. Sheila K. Oberto

This case is set for a status conference on Wednesday, April 21, 2021. On April 17, 2020, this 

Court issued General Order 617, which suspended all jury trials in the Eastern District of California 

scheduled to commence before June 15, 2020, and allowed 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. On May 13, 2020, this Court issued General Order 618, which 

superseded General Order 617 and extended the court’s “judicial emergency for an additional one-year 

period and suspending the time limits [in criminal cases] of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c) until May 2, 2021.”

///

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 44 Filed 04/13/21 Page 1 of 6
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

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 

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 much more enduring, barrier to the prompt proceedings mandated by the statutory rules.

///

///

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 44 Filed 04/13/21 Page 2 of 6
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

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 this matter’s next 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

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective attorneys of record, Assistant 

United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and Eric V. Kersten, counsel for 

defendant Robert Frenchie McGriff (“defendant”), that this action’s Wednesday, April 21, 2021 status 

conference be continued to Wednesday, July 7, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. The parties likewise ask the court 

to endorse this stipulation by way of formal order.

The parties base this stipulation on good cause. Specifically,

1. Since the parties’ last filing with the court, which was submitted in the form of a January 12, 

2021 Joint Status Report and which advised the court of the status of the case (Dkt. 34), prior 

defense counsel Gary Huss’s January 25, 2021 motion to withdraw from the case was both 

heard and granted by the court. Mr. McGriff did not object to prior counsel’s request to

withdraw. Dkt. 37. 

2. On February 16, 2021, Mr. McGriff’s new counsel filed his Notice of Appearance regarding 

this case, and appeared at its status conference later that day. Dkts. 38 and 39. At this status 

conference, counsel for the government advised the court that he had provided new counsel 

with a full set of discovery previously provided to Mr. McGriff’s prior counsel, which itself 

exceeds many thousands of pages of information. Dkt. 39. The parties also agreed to a 

stipulation safeguarding the confidentiality of third parties identified in this discovery, which 

the court endorsed by way of a formal order. Dkt. 41.

 

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 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 44 Filed 04/13/21 Page 3 of 6
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

3. The discovery defense counsel is reviewing in this case includes investigative reports, 

probation and criminal history records, search warrant documents, voluminous records 

relating to defendant’s social media accounts, and information about defendant. Defense 

counsel continues with his analysis of these items. 

4. The government provided prior counsel a plea offer in this case. It will remain open through 

the continued July 7, 2021 status conference date. Counsel for the parties intend to 

substantively discuss its terms once defense counsel has been able to complete his analysis of 

discovery provided. Defendant is currently in custody. In light of logistical hurdles created 

by COVID-19, it may prove difficult for defense counsel to arrange with the appropriate jail 

personnel to timely speak with him in confidence, and these discussions will need to continue 

after the aforementioned evidence review is completed. The parties nevertheless will 

endeavor to meaningfully continue with their efforts at resolving this matter prior to the 

continued status conference. 

5. The parties therefore stipulate that the period of time from April 21, 2021, through July 7, 

2021, 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 the parties’ 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. Counsel for 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.

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.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 44 Filed 04/13/21 Page 4 of 6
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

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: April 12, 2021

By:

PHILIP A. TALBERT

Acting United States Attorney

/s/ Brian W. Enos

Brian W. Enos

Assistant United States Attorney

(As authorized 4/13/21)

Dated: April 13, 2021 By: /s/ Eric V. Kersten

Eric V. Kersten, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant

 Robert Frenchie McGriff

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that the status hearing currently set for Wednesday, April 21, 2021, at 1:00 pm 

is continued until Wednesday, July 7, 2021, at 1:00 pm. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the period of time from April 21, 2021 through July 7, 

2021, 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 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 44 Filed 04/13/21 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 44 Filed 04/13/21 Page 6 of 6