Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cr-00146/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cr-00146-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Manuel Ramirez
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

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 

United States Attorney 

ANTONIO J. PATACA 

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. 

VICTOR MANUEL RAMIREZ, 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. 1:21-CR-00146-NONE-SKO 

STIPULATION TO VACATE STATUS 

CONFERENCE, SET CHANGE OF PLEA 

HEARING, AND EXCLUDE TIME UNDER 

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER 

This case is set for a status conference on January 4, 2023. On May 13, 2020, this Court issued 

General Order 618, which suspends all jury trials in the Eastern District of California “until further 

notice.” Under General Order 618, a judge “may exercise his or her authority 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, previous, 

and subsequent 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 

Case 1:21-cr-00146-JLT-SKO Document 42 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 4
 

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 

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 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 a change of plea. United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting any pretrial 

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 1:21-cr-00146-JLT-SKO Document 42 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 4
 

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 

continuance must be “specifically limited in time”). 

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 January 4, 2023. 

2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to vacate the status conference, set this the case 

for a change of plea hearing on January 20, 2023, and to exclude time between January 4, 2023, and 

January 20, 2023, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4], and 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(1)(G) [Local Code 7]. 

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: 

a) This is a complex wiretap case. The government has represented that the 

discovery associated with this case includes thousands of pages of investigative reports, 

photographs, several large cell phone extractions, video evidence, and hours of recorded, 

intercepted communications. All this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel 

and/or made available for inspection and copying. 

b) The government does not object to the continuance. 

c) 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. 

d) 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 January 4, 2023 to January 20, 

2023, inclusive, 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. 

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. 

Case 1:21-cr-00146-JLT-SKO Document 42 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3 of 4
 

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 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: December 7, 2022 PHILLIP A. TALBERT 

United States Attorney 

/s/ ANTONIO J. PATACA 

 ANTONIO J. PATACA 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Dated: December 7, 2022 /s/ MEGHAN MCLOUGHLIN 

MEGHAN MCLOUGHLIN 

Counsel for Defendant 

VICTOR MANUEL RAMIREZ 

ORDER 

IT IS ORDERED that the status hearing set for January 4, 2023, at 1 pm is vacated, and a change of plea 

hearing is set for January 20, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the period of time from January 4, 2023, through 

January 20, 2023, 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. 

DATED: 

 THE HONORABLE SHEILA K. OBERTO 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

12/8/2022

Case 1:21-cr-00146-JLT-SKO Document 42 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4 of 4