Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cr-00255/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cr-00255-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus James Tatum
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.

MARCUS JAMES TATUM,

Defendant.

Case No: 1:20-cr-00255-ADA-BAM

STIPULATION TO: (1) VACATE MARCH 8, 

2023 STATUS CONFERENCE; (2) SET 

JANUARY 16, 2024 TRIAL CONFIRMATION 

HEARING; AND (3) SET JANUARY 30, 2024

TRIAL DATE; 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 Monica L. Bermudez, Esq., on behalf 

of defendant Marcus James Tatum (“Tatum”), that this action’s: (1) March 8, 2023 status conference be 

vacated; (2) trial confirmation hearing be set for Tuesday, January 16, 2024; and (3) trial date be set for 

Tuesday, January 30, 2024. 

This case is set for a status conference on Wednesday, March 8, 2023. Dkt. 35. 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-00255-TLN-BAM Document 37 Filed 02/27/23 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 March 16, 2023. General Order 656 (E.D. Cal. December 18, 

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-00255-TLN-BAM Document 37 Filed 02/27/23 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-00255-TLN-BAM Document 37 Filed 02/27/23 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. Defendant was arraigned on May 28, 2021, pursuant to the grand jury’s returning an 

indictment alleging one count of receipt and distribution of child pornography, in violation of 

18 U. S.C. § 2522(a)(2). Dkts. 1 and 4. On February 21, 2023, the court issued a minute 

order, advising the parties of: (1) the pending status conference on March 8, 2023, (2) the 

parties’ ability to “stipulate to a continuance of the status conference, with an appropriate 

exclusion of time”, and (3) their need to set a trial date at the continued status conference if 

the matter is not resolved by that date. Dkt. 35.

2. As set forth in prior stipulations submitted to the court, the parties have engaged in in-depth 

communications about a potential resolution of this case for many months. These efforts 

have led to the preparation and delivery of alternative draft plea agreements, and have 

involved defense counsel’s extensive discussions of these drafts with Mr. Tatum. 

Notwithstanding these efforts, the parties believe at this time that this matter will not resolve 

in advance of trial and therefore a trial date should be set. 

3. The parties have since analyzed their respective calendars, met and conferred about both a 

trial confirmation hearing and trial date, and cleared these dates with chambers of Courtroom 

1. In light of these efforts, the parties ask the court to endorse their stipulation to set the trial 

confirmation to take place at 8:30am on Tuesday, January 16, 2024, in Courtroom 1, and 

further set trial to commence at 8:30am on Tuesday, January 30, 2024, likewise in 

Courtroom 1. The parties estimate that trial should be completed within 3-4 full days.

4. The parties continue to be engaged in plea negotiations, and are hopeful that an agreement 

might be reached that will eliminate the need for trial. If this matter is not resolved prior to 

Case 1:20-cr-00255-TLN-BAM Document 37 Filed 02/27/23 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

trial, however, defense counsel will need additional time to investigate the case including 

potential defenses, hire and interact with experts, review electronic evidence in accord with 

18 U.S.C. § 3509 of the Adam Walsh Act, contact potential witnesses, complete its review of 

discovery and supplemental discovery, and communicate with Mr. Tatum. Counsel for the 

government will ensure that any additional information that it locates and should be produced 

pursuant to Rule 16 is indeed identified and produced. 

5. The parties identified the January 30, 2024, trial date in light of their analyses of relevant trial 

calendars, as well as agent and other witness availability.

6. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would 

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

exercise of due diligence.

7. The parties therefore stipulate that the period of time from March 8, 2023, through January 

30, 2024 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 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 STIPULATED.

Dated: February 24, 2023

By:

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

/s/ Brian W. Enos

Brian W. Enos

Assistant United States Attorney

(As authorized 2/24/23)

Dated: February 24, 2023 By: /s/ Monica L. Bermudez

Monica L. Bermudez

Attorney for Defendant

 Marcus James Tatum

Case 1:20-cr-00255-TLN-BAM Document 37 Filed 02/27/23 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, March 8, 2023, in Courtroom 8 is 

vacated;

(2) a trial confirmation hearing is set to be heard on Tuesday, January 16, 2024, at 8:30 

a.m. in Courtroom 1 before District Judge Ana de Alba; and 

(3) trial is set to commence on Tuesday, January 30, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 

1 before District Judge Ana de Alba. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the period of time from March 8, 2023 through January 30, 

2024 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 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: February 27, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cr-00255-TLN-BAM Document 37 Filed 02/27/23 Page 6 of 6