Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cr-00077/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cr-00077-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Owen Ballez
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

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.

CHRISTOPHER OWEN BALLEZ,

 Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:19-CR-77-JAM

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE 

TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; 

FINDINGS AND ORDER

DATE: April 14, 2020

TIME: 9:15 a.m.

COURT: Hon. John A. Mendez

This case was set for a status conference on April 14, 2020, and moved to June 23, 2020 at 9:15 

a.m., on the Court’s on motion, citing General Orders 611 and 612. To the extent it is needed, this 

stipulation supplements the basis for exclusion of time and requests the Court to exclude time under 

Local Code T4 as well, for the reasons set forth below.

On March 18, 2020, this Court issued General Order 612, with reference to General Order 611, 

which together permit District Judges to continue all matters scheduled to occur before May 1, 2020, 

until a date after that, and to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act. These 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 2:19-cr-00077-JAM Document 19 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 4
2 STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

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

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 

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) (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). If continued, this Court should designate a new date 

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”).

///

///

Case 2:19-cr-00077-JAM Document 19 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 4
3 STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

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

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and 

through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on April 14, 2020, and then continued to 

June 23, 2020, at 9:15 a.m., on the Court’s own motion. 

2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to exclude time between April 14, 2020,

and June 23, 2020, under Local Code T4, in addition to the exclusion of time the Court has already 

ordered in light of public health concerns cited by General Order 611.

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

a) The government has produced discovery in this matter including investigative 

reports and photographs. Counsel for the defendant will need additional time to review the 

discovery. Defense counsel will also need time to review the current charges, to investigate and 

conduct research related to the current charges, and to discuss potential resolutions with his

client, to prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial. 

b) Counsel for the 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. 

c) The government does not object to the continuance.

d) 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. 

e) 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 the date of this stipulation and 

order, to June 23, 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 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. 

4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the 

Case 2:19-cr-00077-JAM Document 19 Filed 04/15/20 Page 3 of 4
4 STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 

PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

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

Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial 

must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: April 14, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

/s/ JAMES R. CONOLLY

JAMES R. CONOLLY

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: April 14, 2020 /s/ JEROME PRICE

JEROME PRICE

Assistant Federal Defender

Counsel for Defendant 

CHRISTOPHER OWEN BALLEZ

FINDINGS AND ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2020.

 /s/ John A. Mendez

THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 2:19-cr-00077-JAM Document 19 Filed 04/15/20 Page 4 of 4