Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cr-00107/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cr-00107-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Patterson
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

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.

CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON,

Defendant.

Case No: 1:20-cr-00107-ADA-BAM

STIPULATION TO: (1) VACATE DECEMBER 

14, 2022 STATUS CONFERENCE AND (2) SET 

FEBRUARY 13, 2023 CHANGE OF PLEA 

HEARING; ORDER

Ctrm: 8

Hon. Barbara A. McAuliffe

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective counsel, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Brian W. Enos, on behalf of the government, and David A. Torres, Esq., on behalf of 

defendant Christopher Patterson (“Patterson”), that this action’s: (1) December 14, 2022 status 

conference be vacated; and (2) a change of plea hearing be set for Monday, February 13, 2023, at 8:30 

am in Courtroom 1. 

This case is set for a status conference on Wednesday, December 14, 2022. Dkt. 47. On May 

13, 2020, this Court issued General Order 618, which suspended 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 

Case 1:20-cr-00107-BAM Document 49 Filed 12/05/22 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

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 caseby-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.

On May 26, 2021, and in part “given the progress in vaccination programs and the resulting 

lowering of risk to public health as evidenced by reductions in rates of infection, hospitalization and 

death due to COVID-19”, this Court issued General Order 631. Within General Order 631, this Court: 

(1) reopened the court to the public, (2) gave each judge the authority to “determine whether to hold 

proceedings over which that Judge presides in person in a courtroom or by telephone or 

videoconference” and (3) if “any Judge [elects to conduct] any criminal proceeding by telephone or 

video conference . . . [the Court] continues to authorize the use of telephone or video conference with a 

defendant’s consent.” General Order 631, ¶ ¶ 1, 4 and 5. (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2021). The court’s above 

protocols were recently extended through December 17, 2022. General Order 655 (E.D. Cal. September 

19, 2022).

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-ofCase 1:20-cr-00107-BAM Document 49 Filed 12/05/22 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

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 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 is posing a similar, albeit much 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 defendant faces, and in particular whether the defendant is accused of violent crimes; (6) 

whether there is a reasons 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) 

Case 1:20-cr-00107-BAM Document 49 Filed 12/05/22 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

(Local Code T4). 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 base this stipulation on good cause and therefore ask the court to endorse this 

stipulation by way of formal order. Specifically, 

1. Last week, counsel for the parties in this action reached a tentative agreement resolving 

this case. Although a plea agreement has not been finalized and signed, the parties 

believe they will be able to finalize, execute and file a plea agreement with the court 

within the next couple of weeks. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to vacating this 

action’s December 14, 2022 status conference, and ask that a change of plea hearing be 

set.

2. The parties have since compared respective calendars and met and conferred about 

available dates wherein they could both appear at a change of plea hearing. The parties 

have also cleared potential hearing dates with chambers of Courtroom 1. In light of these 

efforts, the parties and district court are all available for a change of plea hearing to take 

place on Monday, February 13, 2023 (8:30am). In light of these efforts, the parties ask 

the court to endorse their stipulation to vacate the December 14, 2022 status conference 

and set a change of plea hearing for Monday, February 13, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in 

Courtroom 1.

3. The parties therefore stipulate that the period of time from December 14, 2022, through

February 13, 2023 is deemed excludable pursuant to: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(G) so 

the court can consider the proposed plea agreement to be entered into by the parties; and 

(2) 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. 

Case 1:20-cr-00107-BAM Document 49 Filed 12/05/22 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

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: December 4, 2022

By:

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

/s/ Brian W. Enos

Brian W. Enos

Assistant United States Attorney

(As authorized 12/5/22)

Dated: December 5, 2022 By: /s/ David A. Torres

David A. Torres, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant

 Christopher Patterson

Case 1:20-cr-00107-BAM Document 49 Filed 12/05/22 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

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that

(1) the status hearing currently set for Wednesday, December 14, 2022, at 1:00 pm in

Courtroom 8 is vacated; and

(2) a change of plea hearing is set to take place on Monday, February 13, 2023, at 8:30

a.m. in Courtroom 1 before District Judge Ana De Alba.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the period of time from December 14, 2022 through 

February 13, 2023 is deemed excludable pursuant to: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(G) so the court can 

consider the proposed plea agreement to be entered into by the parties; and (2) 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cr-00107-BAM Document 49 Filed 12/05/22 Page 6 of 6