Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cr-00004/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cr-00004-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ruben Angel Castro
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 STIPULATION RE: SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND 

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 

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

JAMES R. CONOLLY 

Assistant United States Attorney 

501 I Street, Suite 10-100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 554-2700 

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

United States of America 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

RUBEN ANGEL CASTRO, 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. 2:20-CR-0004-TLN 

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE 

TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; 

FINDINGS AND ORDER 

DATE: June 18, 2020 

TIME: 9:30 a.m. 

COURT: Hon. Troy L. Nunley 

 

By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 18, 2020. By this stipulation and 

proposed order, the parties respectfully request that the Court continue the status conference until 

August 27, 2020. To the extent it is needed, this stipulation supplements the basis for exclusion of time 

under General Order 617, and all prior General Orders addressing public health concerns, and requests 

that the Court also exclude time between June 18, 2020, and August 27, 2020, under Local Code T4, for 

the reasons set forth below. 

On April 17, 2020, this Court issued General Order 617, which suspends all jury trials in the 

Eastern District of California scheduled to commence before June 15, 2020, and allows district judges to 

continue all criminal matters to a date after June 1. 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 

Case 2:20-cr-00004-KJM Document 27 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 4
 

2 STIPULATION RE: SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND 

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 

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, and 617 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 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. 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 If continued, this Court should designate a new date 

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 2:20-cr-00004-KJM Document 27 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 4
 

3 STIPULATION RE: SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND 

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 

for the 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

1. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until August 27, 

2020, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between June 18, 2020, and August 27, 2020, under Local Code 

T4. 

2. 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, among other things, a considerable number of investigative reports, video surveillance, 

audio recordings, and laboratory reports. The government is in the process of producing this 

discovery, which it anticipates will take up several DVDs. 

b) Counsel for defendant believes she will need some time to go through the 

discovery, once the government has produced it. Counsel will also need additional time to consult 

with her client, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the 

charges, to review discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with her client, to 

prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial. 

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

continuance would deny counsel 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 June 18, 2020 to August 27, 2020, 

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 defendants’ request on the basis of 

the Court’s finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest 

Case 2:20-cr-00004-KJM Document 27 Filed 06/17/20 Page 3 of 4
 

4 STIPULATION RE: SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND 

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 

of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

3. 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 16, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

/s/ JAMES R. CONOLLY 

 JAMES R. CONOLLY 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Dated: June 16, 2020 /s/ LINDA C. ALLISON 

LINDA C. ALLISON 

Assistant Federal Defender 

Counsel for Defendant 

RUBEN ANGEL CASTRO 

FINDINGS AND ORDER 

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2020. 

Case 2:20-cr-00004-KJM Document 27 Filed 06/17/20 Page 4 of 4