Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cr-00022/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cr-00022-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Teodoro Andrade-Bautista
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

JOSEPH BARTON

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.

TEODORO ANDRADE-BAUTISTA,

 Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:20-CR-00022-DAD-BAM

STIPULATION TO VACATE STATUS 

CONFERENCE AND SET CHANGE OF PLEA; 

AND ORDER

DATE: April 13, 2020,

TIME: 1:00 p.m.

COURT: Hon. Barbara A. McAuliffe

This case is currently set for a Status Conference on April 13, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. This 

Stipulation seeks to vacate that Status Conference and set the case for a Change of Plea on May 18, 

2020, at 10:00 a.m. 

On March 17, 2020, this Court issued General Order 611, which suspends all jury trials in the 

Eastern District of California scheduled to commence before May 1, 2020. This General Order was 

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

Although the General Order addresses 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. And 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 

Case 1:20-cr-00022-DAD-BAM Document 16 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 5
2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

judge ordering and 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—the General Order requires 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 Order excludes delay in the “ends of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). 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). If continued, this Court should designate a new date for the Change of 

Plea. 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 April 13, 2020,. 

Case 1:20-cr-00022-DAD-BAM Document 16 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 5
3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

2. By this Stipulation, defendant now moves to vacate the Status Conference and set the 

case for a Change of Plea on May 18, 2020, and to exclude time between April 13, 2020,, and May 18, 

2020. 

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

a) The government has represented that all of the discovery associated with this case 

has been produced to counsel for defendant.

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

current charges, consult with her client, and discuss potential resolutions with her client.

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

continuance would deny 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) In addition to the public health concerns cited by General Order 611 and 

presented by the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, an ends-of-justice delay is particularly apt in 

this case because counsel or other relevant individuals have been encouraged to telework and 

minimize personal contact to the greatest extent possible. It will be difficult to avoid personal 

contact should the hearing proceed before May 18, 2020.

f) 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. 

g) For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, 

et seq., within which trial must commence, the period of April 13, 2020, to May 18, 2020, 

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

h) The parties stipulate and agree that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv) to assure continuity the continuity of 

Case 1:20-cr-00022-DAD-BAM Document 16 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 5
4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

counsel. The parties stipulate and agree the exclusion of time agreed to herein is in the interests 

of justice and will serve to ensure effective assistance of counsel for defendant 

i) Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions 

of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional periods are excludable from the period within 

which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: March 26, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

/s/ JOSEPH BARTON

JOSEPH BARTON

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: March 26, 2020 /s/ CARRIE McCREARY

CARRIE McCREARY

TEODORO ANDRADE-BAUTISTA

Case 1:20-cr-00022-DAD-BAM Document 16 Filed 03/26/20 Page 4 of 5
5 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

JOSEPH BARTON

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.

TEODORO ANDRADE-BAUTISTA

,

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. 1:20-CR-00022-DAD-BAM

ORDER

ORDER

Upon the Parties’ stipulation and for good cause shown, the Status Conference that is currently 

set for April 13, 2020, is hereby vacated and the case is set for a Change of Plea on May 18, 2020, at 

10:00 a.m., before the Honorable District Judge Dale A. Drozd. The period of April 13, 2020, up 

until May 18, 2020, inclusive, is excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cr-00022-DAD-BAM Document 16 Filed 03/26/20 Page 5 of 5