Page 1 - UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

Ruben L. Iñiguez

Assistant Federal Public Defender

101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700

Portland, OR 97204

Tel: (503) 326-2123

Fax: (503) 326-5524

Email: ruben_iniguez@fd.org

Advisory Counsel for Pro Se Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WINSTON SHROUT,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cr-00438-JO

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE

The pro se defendant, Winston Shrout, through his advisory counsel, Ruben L. 

Iñiguez, moves the Court to enter an Order continuing the trial date in the abovecaptioned case for approximately 120 days (i.e., until October 4, 2016). A two-week jury 

trial is currently scheduled for June 7, 2016. This motion constitutes Mr. Shrout’s first 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 51 Filed 05/18/16 Page 1 of 8
Page 2 - UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

request to continue the trial date. The government, through Assistant Attorneys General

Stuart A. Wexler and Ryan R. Raybould, does not oppose this motion.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 8, 2015, the government filed an Indictment charging Mr. Shrout 

with six misdemeanor counts of Willful Failure to File Return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 

7603. CR 1. That same day, the government served a summons directing Mr. Shrout to 

appear in court on January 7, 2016. CR 6.

Mr. Shrout appeared before Magistrate Judge Acosta on January 7, 2016, as 

directed by the summons. CR 8. Judge Acosta appointed “advisory counsel” for Mr. 

Shrout, ordered his release on conditions, and scheduled an arraignment before the 

District Court Judge on February 3. CR 7-8.

Mr. Shrout appeared for arraignment before Senior U.S. District Court Judge 

Robert E. Jones on February 3. CR 12. The Court conducted a Farettta hearing, found Mr. 

Shrout competent to waive his right to representation by counsel, and authorized him to 

“proceed pro se with the Federal Defender present as advisory counsel.” Id. The Court 

entered Mr. Shrout’s pleas of “not guilty” to the six misdemeanor charges, scheduled a 

jury trial for May 3, and continued his pretrial release. Id.

On March 15, the government filed a Superseding Indictment. CR 17. In addition 

to the six misdemeanors alleged in the original Indictment (i.e., Willful Failure to File 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 51 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 8
Page 3 - UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

Return), the Superseding Indictment charges Mr. Shrout with 13 felony counts of 

Fictitious Obligations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514(a). Id. The government later served 

Mr. Shrout with a summons, directing him to appear for arraignment on March 31. CR 

22.

Mr. Shrout appeared for arraignment on the Superseding Indictment before Judge 

Jones on March 31, as directed. CR 26. At the request of the government (CR 24), the 

Court first held another Farettta hearing. Id. Again, the Court found Mr. Shrout 

competent to waive his right to representation by counsel and authorized him to 

“proceed Pro Se with Assistant Federal Public Defender Ruben L. Iniguez appointed as 

advisory counsel.” Id. The Court sua sponte declared the case “complex,” entered Mr. 

Shrout’s pleas of “not guilty” to all 19 counts, scheduled a final pretrial conference for 

June 1, and rescheduled the two-week jury trial for June 7. Id.

1 Although the Court 

continued Mr. Shrout’s pretrial release, it added several special release conditions. See

CR 28. Mr. Shrout has remained out of custody and in compliance with the terms of his 

pretrial release since January 7.

 

1 The Speedy Trial Act excludes delays resulting from a continuance when the court finds that the “ends 

of justice served by taking [that] action outweigh the ... interest of the public and the defendant in a 

speedy trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Among the factors a court must consider in deciding whether to 

grant a continuance under this section are: “Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the 

number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, 

that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within 

the time limits established by this section.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 51 Filed 05/18/16 Page 3 of 8
Page 4 - UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

STATUS OF DISCOVERY2

On February 18, 2016, the government produced initial discovery. “[T]he 

discovery encompasses extensive records, much of which is contained on computer hard 

drives.” Letter dated February 8, 2016, at 1.

3

 The initial production included three 

separate CD-ROM disks. The first disk “contains [digital bank] records obtained from 

Wells Fargo Bank in response to a subpoena.” Letter dated February 18, 2016. The second 

“contains various items of evidence gathered during the course of the government’s 

investigation.” Id. The third “contains scanned copies of records that were seized during 

the execution of a search warrant . . . [almost four years ago] in June, 2012.” Id. The 

government also produced an index to the documents.

That same day, February 18, advisory counsel forwarded a blank, 2-terabyte (2 TB) 

capacity hard drive to the government. The government requested the blank storage 

device so that it could produce copies of the “approximately 1.5 TB of additional digital 

material associated with the investigation of this case.” Letter dated February 8, 2016, at 

 

2 Prior to the production of any discovery, the government filed a motion for an Order to: (1) authorize the 

disclosure of (a) taxpayer returns and return information, and (b) transcripts of testimony of witnesses and 

documents obtained by federal grand jury subpoenas; and (2) prevent the dissemination or misuse of 

discovery material containing sensitive information. CR 14. The Court granted the motion. It entered the 

Order on February 10, 2016. CR 15.

3 The government “digitized approximately 12,000 pages of documents related to this case.” Letter dated 

February 8, 2016, at 2. “Scanned images of those documents have been imported into an e-discovery 

software package called iPro; each page has been assigned a Bates number. There are two iPro databases 

covering the approximately 12,000 total pages.” Id. The two databases were then published to separate 

DVDs.

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 51 Filed 05/18/16 Page 4 of 8
Page 5 - UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

2. “The material originates from nine (9) computer hard drives that were seized . . . 

[almost four years ago] in June, 2012, pursuant to a search warrant....” Id. at 2-3.

On February 29, the government returned the 2 TB hard drive to advisory counsel. 

The hard drive now contains “mirror images” of the nine (9) computer drives seized by 

the government in June 2012. Letter dated February 29, 2016, at 1.

Three days later, the government forwarded its “third production of discovery.” 

Letter dated March 3, 2016, at 1. “The disk contains an updated iPro database that 

includes both the material disclosed on February 19, as well as new, additional items.” 

Id. The government also produced an index indicating “what material is new.” Id.

One month later, the government forwarded its “fourth production of discovery.” 

Letter dated April 8, 2016, at 1. “The material includes nine [more] disks.” Id. “The disks 

contain audio and video files taken as part of a[n] ... investigation conducted [seven years 

ago] in 2009 and an ... investigation conducted [four years ago] in 2012.” Id.

4

Earlier this month, on May 3, the government forwarded its “fifth production of 

discovery.” Letter dated May 3, 2016, at 1. “The disk contains four separate documents: 

 

4 That same day, April 8, “in an attempt to narrow the field of view ... in light of the significant amount of 

material disclosed ... in discovery,” the government produced one additional disk containing “some key 

documents” that are “solely focused on the [fictitious obligation] charges.” E-mail dated April 8, 2016. 

While “these documents will be part of the government’s evidence at trial, [they] certainly do not represent 

the limit of the government’s evidence.” Id.

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 51 Filed 05/18/16 Page 5 of 8
Page 6 - UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

a Memorandum of Interview related to the [recent] interview of [a witness] ...; an audio 

file with accompanying certified transcription related to a [recent] podcast ...; and a table 

showing a list of WSSIC [Winston Shrout – Solutions in Commerce] seminar disks and 

timestamps.” Id.

Two days later, on May 5, the government produced “a DVD containing select 

video clips and an accompanying video clip matrix.” Letter dated May 5, 2016, at 1. “The 

video clips are taken from a selection of seminars [Mr. Shrout] presented over the past 

several years.” Id. “The accompanying matrix is a guide to what the final video clips will 

contain and where the clips originated.” Id.

The government produced its most recent discovery one week ago, on May 12. It 

produced another “two memoranda from recent phone interviews conducted with 

individuals associated with [this case].” E-mail dated May 12, 2016. That same day, the 

Court granted the government’s formal motion for reciprocal discovery. CR 43 and 46. 

Mr. Shrout has not produced any discovery to the government yet.

MOTION

A continuance of the current trial date for approximately 120 days is required to 

provide Mr. Shrout and his advisory counsel with sufficient time to complete their 

independent review of discovery. By itself, the sheer volume of the discovery material 

produced to date by the government justifies a continuance. The nature of the material, 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 51 Filed 05/18/16 Page 6 of 8
Page 7 - UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

as well as the manner by which it has been produced (i.e., in electronic format), also 

supports a continuance. A substantial amount of time and resources are required so that 

Mr. Shrout and his advisory counsel may review, extract, organize, and analyze the most 

relevant material that is currently buried electronically within the mass of information 

that continues to be produced.

Mr. Shrout and his advisory counsel also require more time so that they may meet 

to review and discuss the discovery materials and the investigation necessary for his 

defense.

A continuance is also necessary so that Mr. Shrout and his advisory counsel may 

conduct independent investigation, including witness interviews and document 

retrieval; consult and retain expert witnesses; perform legal research; and otherwise 

prepare for what the government estimates will be a two-week jury trial.

Finally, Mr. Shrout and his advisory counsel need additional time to complete 

research into possible defenses, to research and file appropriate legal motions, to engage 

in potential plea negotiations, and to otherwise prepare for trial.

Advisory counsel has spoken with Mr. Shrout, explained the bases supporting his 

personal request for a continuance of the current trial date, and the rights he has under 

the Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)). Mr. Shrout knowingly and voluntarily 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 51 Filed 05/18/16 Page 7 of 8
Page 8 - UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

waives his rights under the Speedy Trial Act. He respectfully requests that the Court 

continue his current trial date for approximately 120 days (i.e., until October 4, 2016).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of May, 2016.

/s/ Ruben L. Iñiguez

Ruben L. Iñiguez

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 51 Filed 05/18/16 Page 8 of 8