Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00250/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00250-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ashley Hullon
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND TRIAL 

CONFIRMATION

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

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

KATHLEEN A. SERVATIUS

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.

ASHLEY HULLON, ET. AL.

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:19-CR-00250 NONE-SKO

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS 

CONFERENCE AND ORDER THEREON

Date: April 20, 2020

Time: 1:00 p.m.

Honorable Sheila K. Oberto

The United States of America, by and through MCGREGOR W. SCOTT, United States 

Attorney, and KATHLEEN A. SERVATIUS, Assistant United States Attorneys, and the defendants, by 

and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate to continue the status conference in this 

case from April 20, 2020 until August 3, 2020 at 1:00 p.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.

Case 1:19-cr-00250-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 4
2

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND TRIAL 

CONFIRMATION

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

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 [event]. United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting any pretrial 

continuance must be “specifically limited in time”).

The parties request that time be excluded between April 20, 2020 and August 3, 2020 for the 

following reasons: the defendants need additional time to review the discovery, consult with their 

clients, and conduct further investigation. The case involves several controlled buys and approximately 

Case 1:19-cr-00250-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 4
3

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND TRIAL 

CONFIRMATION

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

6,000 pages of discovery. Supplemental discovery was provided on March 5, 2020. The proposed 

status conference date represents the earliest date that all counsel are available thereafter, taking into 

account counsels’ schedules, defense counsel’s commitments to other clients, and the need for 

preparation in the case and further investigation. In addition, 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.

The parties further believe that time should be excluded, in that failure to grant the requested 

case schedule would unreasonably deny the defendants continuity of counsel, and unreasonably deny 

both the defendants and the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking 

into account the parties’ due diligence in prosecuting this case. 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 

Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by the schedule as requested outweigh the 

interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial 

Act. Therefore, the parties request that the Court exclude the time until the new trial date from 

calculations under the Speedy Trial Act.

Dated: April 14, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

/s/ Kathleen A. Servatius

KATHLEEN A. SERVATIUS

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: April 14, 2020 /s/ John Garland

Attorney for Defendant Ralph Gonzales

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status conference in this case be continued from April 20, 

2020 until August 3, 2020 at 1:00 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the ends of justice served by the schedule set forth herein as 

requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendants in a trial within the original date 

Case 1:19-cr-00250-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 04/16/20 Page 3 of 4
4

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND TRIAL 

CONFIRMATION

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

prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act for the reasons stated in the parties’ stipulation. 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 April 20, 2020, and August 3, 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 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 defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cr-00250-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 04/16/20 Page 4 of 4