Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cr-00179/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cr-00179-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Efrain Perez
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

30

31

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

KATHERINE E. SCHUH

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.

CARLOS EFRAIN PEREZ

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:21-CR-00179-NONE-SKO

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

This case is set for an in-person arraignment on August 12, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. before the 

Honorable Stanley A. Boone. The parties stipulate to continue the matter to August 27, 2021 before the 

Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe 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 1:21-cr-00179-JLT-SKO Document 13 Filed 08/10/21 Page 1 of 4
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

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 hearing. 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 defendant, CARLOS EFRAIN PEREZ, by and 

through his counsel, hereby agree and stipulate to continue this matter until August 27, 2021. 

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 

Case 1:21-cr-00179-JLT-SKO Document 13 Filed 08/10/21 Page 2 of 4
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

30

31

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

stipulate that:

1. This matter is set for an in person arraignment on August 12, 2021.

2. The government has provided the defendants with discovery that includes investigative 

reports, photographs, and video files. The defense is continuing to review those documents. 

The defense also requires additional time to conduct investigation, and to discuss potential 

resolution of the case with the government. 

3. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic public health restrictions, as well as restrictions at Fresno 

County Jail, defense counsel have had limited access to his clients, and require additional 

time to discuss case matters with his client.

4. Therefore, the parties agree that a continuance until August 27, 2021, is warranted. 

5. The parties stipulate that the period of time from August 12, 2021, through August 27, 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 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: August 3, 2021

By:

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

/s/ KATHERINE E. SCHUH

KATHERINE E. SCHUH

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: August 3, 2021 /s/ DOUGLAS BEEVERS____ 

Attorney for Defendant

CARLOS EFRAIN PEREZ

Case 1:21-cr-00179-JLT-SKO Document 13 Filed 08/10/21 Page 3 of 4
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

30

31

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that the August 12, 2021 arraignment in this matter is continued to August 27, 

2021 before the Honorable Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The hearing will be held at the Fresno 

Courthouse with all parties appearing in person. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the period of time from August 12, 2021, through August 

27, 2021, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), 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 defendants in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2021 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cr-00179-JLT-SKO Document 13 Filed 08/10/21 Page 4 of 4