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

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL - 1

United States v. Santana et al/CR06-220-JLR

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Judge Robart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 ) NO. CR06-220 JLR

Plaintiff, )

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL 

 )

 )

DOMINGO SANTANA, )

ANDRES VIZCARRA, )

 a.k.a. ANDRES VIASCARRA, ) 

 a.k.a. ANDRES VIZCARRA MORENO, ) 

ADRIAN SANTANA, )

DARIO VILLARREAL and )

MIGUEL GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, )

 )

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

This matter having come before the undersigned Court by operation of a joint

motion of counsel, except counsel for defendant Adrian Santana, and based on the facts

contained in the motion, including the recent substitution of counsel for defendants

Domingo Santana and Andres Vizcarra and the pending motion to withdraw by counsel

for Adrian Santana, and the Court being fully advised in the matter, now finds that; 

The trial was scheduled for December 11, 2006. Acknowledging that new

counsel need additional time to review and prepare the case, and that counsel have

other cases which are scheduled for trial on various dates in January and February of

2007, counsel ask for a continuance of the trial date until March 27, 2007. Pretrial

motions shall be filed by February 23, 2007. The government has no objection to the

requested continuance. 

Case 2:06-cr-00220-JLR Document 153 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL - 2

United States v. Santana et al/CR06-220-JLR

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

The Court is aware that time limitations for trial and speedy trial concerns are

set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161, which reads in part:

(c)(1) In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered,

the trial of a defendant charged in an information or

indictment with the commission of an offense shall

commence within seventy days from the filing date (and

making public) of the information or indictment, or from the

date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of

the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date

last occurs. 

***

(2) Unless the defendant consents in writing to the contrary, the trial shall

not commence less than thirty days from the date on which the defendant

first appears. . . .

Section 3161(h) outlines the periods of excludable time, including:

(8)(A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance

granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of

the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney

for the Government, 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. No such period of delay

resulting from a continuance granted by the court in

accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under

this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of

the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for 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.

 (B) The factors, among others, which a judge shall consider in

determining whether to grant a continuance under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph

in any case are as follows:

* * *

(ii) Whether . . .it is unreasonable to expect adequate

preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself

within the time limits established by this section.

 * * *

(iv) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case

which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as

to fall within clause (ii), would deny the defendant

reasonable time to obtain counsel, would unreasonably deny

the defendant or the Government continuity of counsel, or

Case 2:06-cr-00220-JLR Document 153 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL - 3

United States v. Santana et al/CR06-220-JLR

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the

Government the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due

diligence. 

In this matter, the Court finds that further time is reasonable and necessary to

address the pending motion to withdraw by one counsel, to allow new defense counsel

adequate time to diligently prepare for trial and, to allow all counsel adequate time on

this matter as well as other trials already scheduled. The Court previously has

examined the charges and determined that the defendants are charged together in two

conspiracies and that no motions to sever are pending. The defendants and charges

appear to be intertwined and should be tried together. Additionally there are no victims

who either object to or would be prejudiced by a continuance. Based on the foregoing,

the Court finds that the ends of justice are served by the requested continuance. 

Therefore, the time between December 11, 2006 and March 27, 2007 is excludable

time under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3161 and the trial in this matter is continued until

March 27, 2007. 

Dated this 4th day of December, 2006. 

 

AJAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00220-JLR Document 153 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 3