Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cr-00191/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cr-00191-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christian Espinoza
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

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 

STEPHANIE M. STOKMAN 

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. 

CHRISTIAN ESPINOZA, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 1:21-CR-00191-JLT-SKO 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS 

CONFERENCE; ORDER 

DATE: July 6, 2022 

TIME: 1:00 p.m. 

COURT: Hon. Sheila K. Oberto 

This case is set for status conference on July 6, 2022. 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, 2021.1

 This and previous General Orders, as well as the declarations of judicial emergency, 

were entered to address public health concerns related to COVID-19. 

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 

1

 A judge “may order case-by-case exceptions” 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). 

Case 1:21-cr-00191-JLT-SKO Document 47 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 4
 

2 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

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 

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. 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 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). The Government’s position is that 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 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). 2 If continued, this Court should designate a new date for the status conference. 

2

 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 1:21-cr-00191-JLT-SKO Document 47 Filed 06/30/22 Page 2 of 4
 

3 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

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 

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 status on July 6, 2022. 

2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the status conference until August 

31, 2022, and to exclude time between July 6, 2022, and August 31, 2022, under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [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 

includes reports, photographs, and audio files. All of this discovery has been either produced 

directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying. 

b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to further review discovery, discuss 

potential resolution with her client and the government, and investigate and 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. 

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 July 6, 2022 to August 31, 2022, 

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 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 defendants in a speedy trial. 

Case 1:21-cr-00191-JLT-SKO Document 47 Filed 06/30/22 Page 3 of 4
 

4 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

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 

g) The parties also agree that this continuance is necessary for several reasons, 

including but not limited to, the need to permit time for the parties to exchange supplemental 

discovery, engage in plea negotiations, and for the defense to continue its investigation and 

preparation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv). 

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: June 30, 2022 PHILLIP A. TALBERT 

United States Attorney 

/s/ STEPHANIE M. STOKMAN 

STEPHANIE M. STOKMAN 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Dated: June 30, 2022 /s/ CHRISTINA CORCORAN 

CHRISTINA CORCORAN 

Counsel for Defendant 

CHRISTIAN ESPINOZA 

ORDER 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

 THE HONORABLE SHEILA K. OBERTO 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

6/30/2022

Case 1:21-cr-00191-JLT-SKO Document 47 Filed 06/30/22 Page 4 of 4