Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cr-00062/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cr-00062-26/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennise Castro-Lopez
Defendant
Julio Chavez-Lucatero
Defendant
Bryan Sahagun
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff
Destaney Walker
Defendant

Document Text:

1 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

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

LAUREL J. MONTOYA

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.

JULIO CHAVEZ-LICATERO, DENNISE CASTRO-LOPEZ,

DESTANEY WALKER, and

BRYAN SAHAGUN,

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-CR-00062-JLT-SKO

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE 

TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; 

ORDER

DATE: March 30, 2022

TIME: 1:00 p.m.

COURT: Hon. Sheila K. Oberto

On May 13, 2020, this Court issued General Order 618, which suspends all jury trials in the 

Eastern District of California until further notice. This General Order was entered to address public 

health concerns related to COVID-19. Further, pursuant to General Order 614, 620, 624, 628, and 630 

and the CARES Act, 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 1, 2020.1

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 1:20-cr-00062-JLT-SKO Document 103 Filed 03/25/22 Page 1 of 5
2 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

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

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 

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—General Orders 611, 612, 617, 618, and 620 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). 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 twoweek 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-ofCase 1:20-cr-00062-JLT-SKO Document 103 Filed 03/25/22 Page 2 of 5
3 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

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

justice exception, § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4).2 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”).

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 March 30, 2022. 

2. By this stipulation, defendant and government now move to continue the status 

conference until June 1, 2022, and to exclude time between March 30, 2022, and June 1, 2022, under 

Local Code T4. 

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

a) The government has represented that initial discovery in this case has been 

provided. The government is in the process of determining if additional discovery needs to be 

produced and, if so, making it available to the defense.

b) Certain discovery was not provided to current counsel for defendant Chavez in 

error. The government will provide this discovery which is believed to be cellphone downloads 

by March 31, 2022.

c) Counsel for defendant’s desire additional time to review discovery, conduct 

investigation, and engage in plea negotiations.

d) Counsel for defendants 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.

e) The government agrees with the continuance request and does not object to the 

continuance.

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 1:20-cr-00062-JLT-SKO Document 103 Filed 03/25/22 Page 3 of 5
4 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

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

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 time period of March 30, 2022 to June 1, 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 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 

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

must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: March 24, 2022 PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

/s/ LAUREL J. MONTOYA

LAUREL J. MONTOYA

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: March 24, 2022 /s/ MARC DAYS

MARC DAYS

Counsel for Defendant 

JULIO CHAVEZ-LUCATERO

Dated: March 24, 2022 /s/ KEVIN P. ROONEY

KEVIN P. ROONEY

Counsel for Defendant

DENNISE CASTRO-LOPEZ

Dated: March 24, 2022 /s/ ANTHONY P. CAPOZZI

ANTHONY P. CAPOZZI

Counsel for Defendant

DESTANEY WALKER

Case 1:20-cr-00062-JLT-SKO Document 103 Filed 03/25/22 Page 4 of 5
5 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

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

Dated: March 24, 2022 /s/ MONICA BERMUDEZ

MONICA BERMUDEZ

Counsel for Defendant

BRYAN SAHAGUN

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/25/2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto

THE HONORABLE SHEILA K. OBERTO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cr-00062-JLT-SKO Document 103 Filed 03/25/22 Page 5 of 5