Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cr-00155/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cr-00155-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juzer Qassim
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

30

31

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

VINCENTE A. TENNERELLI

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.

JUZER QASSIM,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:16-CR-00155-DAD-BAM 

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE 

TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; 

ORDER 

JURY TRIAL: July 7, 2020, 10:00 a.m. 

TRIAL CONF. HEARING: June 22, 2020, 10:00 a.m. 

COURT: Hon. Dale A. Drozd 

This matter was set for jury trial on February 26, 2019. C.R. 39. By stipulation filed January 29, 

2019, the trial was continued to May 21, 2019. C.R. 57. By stipulation filed April 4, 2019, the trial was 

further continued to February 4, 2020. CR 59. By stipulation filed January 2, 2020, this matter was 

further continued to July 7, 2020, with the trial confirmation hearing to occur on June 22, 2020. CR 63.

On April 17, 2020, this Court issued General Order 618, which suspends all jury trials in the 

Eastern District of California “until further notice” and allows district judges to continue criminal 

matters at their discretion. This and previous 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 v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 509 (2006). “[W]ithout on-the-record findings, there can be no 

Case 1:16-cr-00155-CRB-BAM Document 66 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 4
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

30

31

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, and 618 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 excuse 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 The parties are continuing to determine whether this 

matter can be resolved by plea. Given disruptions to state and federal trial calendars due to the 

pandemic, defense counsel anticipates that his trial calendar will be impacted for the remainder of the 

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 1:16-cr-00155-CRB-BAM Document 66 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 4
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

30

31

year, making a shorter continuance infeasible. If continued, this Court should designate a new date for 

the trial and confirmation hearing. United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting 

any pretrial 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 trial on July 7, 2020.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the trial to January 26, 2021 at 8:30

a.m., to continue the trial confirmation hearing to January 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., and to exclude time

between July 7, 2020, and January 26, 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 has

been produced or made available for inspection and copying to defendant.

b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, review the

current charges, review discovery for this matter, discuss potential resolutions with his client and 

the government, to prepare pretrial motions, and otherwise to prepare for trial.

c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested

continuance would deny him/her 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. 

4. 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 July 7, 2020 to January 26, 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 

Case 1:16-cr-00155-CRB-BAM Document 66 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 4
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

30

31

a speedy trial.

5. 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: May 16, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

/s/ VINCENTE A. 

TENNERELLI

VINCENTE A. TENNERELLI

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: May 16, 2020 /s/ DAVID A. TORRES

DAVID A. TORRES

Counsel for Defendant 

JUZER QASSIM

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the Trial Confirmation currently scheduled for June 22, 2020, at 10:00 

a.m. is continued to January 11, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. and the Jury Trial currently scheduled for July 7,

2020, at 8:30 a.m. is continued to January 26, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. Time is excluded as indicated in the 

parties’ stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cr-00155-CRB-BAM Document 66 Filed 05/18/20 Page 4 of 4