Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00638/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00638-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
LeRoy Albert Lewis
Defendant
Roy Albert Lewis
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) Case No. CR05-0638 SI

Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. )

) ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 

LEROY A. LEWIS and ) THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

ROY A. LEWIS, )

)

Defendants. ) 

 )

 

Now before the Court is a joint motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161 et seq. All parties agreed in open court at the June 2, 2006 status conference that the time until

the June 30, 2006 motion hearing date should be excluded from the time limits established by the

Speedy Trial Act. 

In a series of rulings, the Court has previously ordered that the time from November 16, 2005

until May 19, 2006, be excluded for Speedy Trial purposes. On December 23, 2005, in a written order,

the Court excluded the time for Speedy Trial purposes from November 16, 2005, the date on which the

defendants began to file pretrial motions, for 60 days or until the defendants’ pretrial motions were

resolved, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8). On January 30, 2006, the

Court issued a second written order excluding the time from January 27, 2006 to March 3, 2006,

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8). On March 3, 2006, the Court held a

hearing on the defendants’ motions and issued its ruling thereon from the bench. At that hearing, the

Case 3:05-cr-00638-SI Document 112 Filed 06/06/2006 Page 1 of 2
 Case 3:05-cr-00638-SI Document 115 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 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

defendants requested additional time to prepare for trial and noted that the health of defendant Leroy

Albert Lewis at that time did not permit him to prepare for trial. The Court ordered that the parties

appear at a status conference on May 19, 2006. All parties agreed to exclude for Speedy Trial purposes

the time from March 3, 2006 until May 19, 2006 and the Court so ordered from the bench pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8). The Court found that the ends of justice served by the granting of the

continuance and allowing the defendants to adequately prepare for trial in this complex tax fraud

conspiracy case outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The

cumulative result of these orders is that the Court has previously excluded the time for Speedy Trial

purposes from November 16, 2005 until May 19, 2006.

On April 26, 2006, the Court ordered that the date of the status conference be continued until

June 2, 2006. On June 2, 2006, the Court held a status conference. At the status conference, defendant

Leroy Albert Lewis advised the Court that his health would not permit him to be ready for trial until at

least October 1, 2006. Consequently, the Government moved to sever the trials of defendant Roy

Albert Lewis and defendant Leroy Albert Lewis. Both defendants objected to the Government’s

motion. The Court ordered the parties to brief the matter and set a motion hearing date of June 30,

2006. All parties agreed to exclude the time up to June 30, 2006 for Speedy Trial purposes.

Therefore, the Court finds that the time from May 19, 2006 until June 30, 2006 is properly

excluded under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) to allow the Court to rule on this motion. In the alternative,

the Court orders that the time period is tolled by finding that this case is “so complex . . . that it is

unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the

time limits established by” the Speedy Trial Act as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B). The Court

also finds that the ends of justice are best served by excluding this time, and that this outweighs the

interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). See

Zedner v. United States, -- S.Ct.--, 2006 WL 1519360 (June 5, 2006). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cr-00638-SI Document 112 Filed 06/06/2006 Page 2 of 2
 Case 3:05-cr-00638-SI Document 115 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 2