Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cr-00021/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cr-00021-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Stern
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

The Law Office of Olaf W. Hedberg

Olaf W. Hedberg, State Bar #151082

901 H St., Suite 301

Sacramento, California 95814

(916) 447-1192 office

ohedberg@yahoo.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE UNITED STAES OF AMERICA

V.

KEVIN STERN

Case Number: 21-0021 MCE

STIPULATION AND ORDER

DATE: March 18, 2021

TIME: 10 a.m.

DEPT: MCE

This case is set for a status conference on March 18, 2021. By this stipulation, the parties 

request a continuance of the status conference to May 20, 2021, and to exclude time under Local 

Codes T2 and T4, for the reasons set forth below. 

On May 13, 2020, this Court issued General Order 618, which suspends all jury trials in 

the Eastern District of California “until further notice.” Further, pursuant to General Order 611, 

this Court’s declaration of judicial emergency under 18 U.S.C. § 3174, and the Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Council’s Order of April 16, 2020 continuing this Court’s judicial emergency, this Court 

has allowed district judges to continue all criminal matters to a date after May 2, 2021

Case 2:21-cr-00021-JAM Document 34 Filed 03/12/21 Page 1 of 5
 

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

Although the General Orders and declarations of emergency 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-therecord 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. RamirezCortez, 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 and the subsequent 

declaration of judicial emergency require 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 Orders and declaration of judicial emergency 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. 

Case 2:21-cr-00021-JAM Document 34 Filed 03/12/21 Page 2 of 5
 

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

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-of-justice exception, § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4).

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. This matter was set for status on March 18, 2021. 

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until May 

20, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., and to exclude time between March 18, 2021, and May 20, 2021, under 

Local Code T4. 

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

a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case to date 

includes more many pages of investigative reports, photographs, affidavits, and other documents; 

approximately, recorded phone calls intercepted pursuant to the Title III wiretap; and other video 

and audio recordings. All of this discovery is in the process of being produced directly to counsel 

and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b) Counsel for defendant needs additional time to review the discovery in this case, to 

conduct independent factual investigation, to research trial and sentencing issues, to consult with 

the client, and to otherwise prepare. 

Case 2:21-cr-00021-JAM Document 34 Filed 03/12/21 Page 3 of 5
 

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

c) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance 

would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the 

exercise of due diligence. 

d) The government does not object to the continuance.

e) 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. 

f) 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 March 18, 2021 to May 20, 2021, 

inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] 

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.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:21-cr-00021-JAM Document 34 Filed 03/12/21 Page 4 of 5
 

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

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: March 10, 2021 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

/s /Vincenza Rabenn

VINCENZA RABENN

Assistant U S Attorney 

Dated: March 10, 2021 /s/Olaf W. Hedberg

Olaf W. Hedberg

Counsel for Defendant 

KEVIN STERN

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 11, 2021

Case 2:21-cr-00021-JAM Document 34 Filed 03/12/21 Page 5 of 5