UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAUL DA YID ALVARADO, FIDEL 

VILLAFANA-BELTRAN and 

RAECHEL AMIS, 

Defendants. 

Jones, J. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case. No. 3-15-CR-00369-JO 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Defendants Alvarado and Amis filed motions to continue the trial date, currently 

scheduled for July 12, 2016. (# 59 and 61). Defendant Villafana-Beltran opposes having his 

trial date set-over. However, on June 27, 2016, his attorney filed a motion to suppress, 

automatically tolling Villafana-Beltran's speedy trial rights.(# 67). Also on June 27, 2016, I 

held a status conference to discuss the upcoming trial date. During the status conference, 

Villafana-Beltran stated that if the motion to suppress affected the trial date, he did not want the 

motion filed. After hearing from all the parties, I took the motions to continue under advisement 

and now issue this opinion and order. I find: 

(1) This case involves three defendants, voluminous discovery including over 4000 

documents, and video and electronic evidence. The government indicated it would call at 

1 Opinion and Order 

Case 3:15-cr-00369-JO Document 70 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 3
least 12 witnesses in its case-in-chief. For those reasons, I am designating this a complex 

case. 

(2) Both Alvarado's and Amis's counsel were appointed recently (June 6, 2016 and April 14, 

2016, respectively) and requested continuations of their trial dates so their counsel could 

adequately prepare for trial. Villafana-Beltran's counsel was appointed on January 25, 

2016 after Villafana-Beltran requested substitution of counsel. 

(3) The present trial date of July 12 does not allow the Government's attorney or all the 

defendants' attorneys to prepare adequately for trial, although the court is available on 

that date. 

(4) Villafana-Beltran's libe1iy is not at stake. Regardless of the outcome of this case, he will 

remain in custody until at least October 6, 2016, at which time he will be sentenced in 

case number 3:15-CR-00282-JO for illegal reentry. A set-over of the trial date to 

October 4, 2016 would not prejudice Villafana-Beltran. 

(5) Cunently, Villafana-Beltran's motion to suppress has not been withdrawn. Counsel for 

the Government will have 28 days in which to file a response, a date that would occm 

after the cmTent trial date. 

( 6) The judicial economy that results from trying all the co-conspirators at the same time 

serves the ends of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). 

It is well established that an exclusion from the Speedy Trial clock for one defendant 

applies to all codefendants. United States v. lvfesser, 197 F.3d 330, 336 (9111 Cir. 1999). See also 

United States v. Lewis, 611F.3d1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2010). Given the complexity of the case, I 

find not granting the motions would deny counsel for the defendants and the Government the 

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of the case. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(B)(iv). 

2 Opinion and Order 

Case 3:15-cr-00369-JO Document 70 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 3
Thus, Alvarado's and Amis's motions to continue(# 59 and 61) are GRANTED. The trial date 

in this case will now be October 4, 2016. 1 The Government shall have 28 days from the date of 

this order to file a response to the Villafana-Beltran's motion to suppress(# 67). A reply, if any, 

shall be due 7 days after the Government files its response. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this /J16-day of June, 2016. 

Robe1it7District Couii Judge 

1 Mr. Warren, counsel for Alvarado, indicated he has a conflict in October that would prohibit him from tlying the 

case. Because he has only represented Alvarado for 3 weeks, perhaps Mr. Warren should request substitute counsel 

who would be available in October. 

3 Opinion and Order 

Case 3:15-cr-00369-JO Document 70 Filed 06/29/16 Page 3 of 3