BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366

United States Attorney

District of Oregon

STUART A. WEXLER

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

Stuart.A.Wexler@usdoj.gov

RYAN R. RAYBOULD

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

Ryan.R.Raybould@usdoj.gov

1000 SW Third Ave, Suite 600

Portland, OR 97204-2902

Telephone: (503) 727-1000

Facsimile: (503) 727-1117

Attorneys for United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 3:15-CR-00438-JO

Plaintiff,

v.

WINSTON SHROUT,

Defendant.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 

SECOND MOTION TO CONTINUE 

JURY TRIAL DATE

The United States of America, by and through Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney 

for the District of Oregon, and Stuart A. Wexler and Ryan R. Raybould, Trial Attorneys, Tax 

Division, hereby submits this Response in Opposition to the defendant’s Second Motion to 

Continue Jury Trial Date (Doc. 56) and respectfully asks the Court to deny the defendant’s 

Motion.

/ /

/ /

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 6
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE 

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 

SECOND MOTION TO 

CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE - 2

I. BACKGROUND

The defendant was arraigned on the initial indictment in this case on February 8, 2016. 

The Government provided the defendant with initial discovery in this matter on February 18, 

2016. On February 29, the government supplemented discovery with the addition of a “mirror 

image” of hard drives previously seized from the defendant and an associated business location. 

On March 3, the government further supplemented its discovery in this matter and provided the 

defendant with an index to all disclosed material.

On March 31, 2016, the defendant was arraigned on the superseding indictment in this 

case and trial was set for June 7, 2016. Subsequent to his arraignment, the government further 

supplemented its discovery in this matter on April 8, May 3, May 5, and May 12. While these 

subsequent disclosures contained audio and video materials, the vast majority of the 

documentary evidence against the defendant was provided no later than March 3.

Based on the defendant’s unopposed Motion to Continue Jury Trial Date filed on May 

19, 2016 (Doc. 53.), the Court continued trial in this matter for approximately four months; trial 

is now scheduled for October 11, 2016. October 11 will mark approximately 190 days since the 

defendant was arraigned on the Superseding Indictment and approximately 220 days since the 

defendant was provided the bulk of discovery in this case.

The defendant filed the instant Second Motion to Continue Jury Trial Date on September 

8, 2016, and has requested an additional six months of time to prepare for trial in this matter.

II. ARGUMENT

The defendant has had sufficient time to prepare for trial in this matter and, in the interest 

of the public’s right to a Speedy Trial, his Motion should be denied. 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 6
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE 

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 

SECOND MOTION TO 

CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE - 3

While the defendant accurately states the scope of discovery in this case, the vast 

majority of material was originally in the possession of the defendant and formed the basis for 

his seminars and other business ventures for at least the last eight years. Any audio or video 

content provided to the defendant is of the defendant himself talking or presenting. Of the 

approximately 16,000 pages of material provided to the defendant, 3000 pages relate to bank 

records of the defendant’s own bank accounts and 10,000 relate to digital copies of “legal” 

treatises the defendant possessed on his computer. The remaining discovery is minimal in 

comparison. Nevertheless, upon the defendant’s urging and the Court’s request, the government 

provided the defendant in April 2016, with a selection of 29 key documents that formed the crux 

of the government’s case. The government also provided the defendant with the “key word” list 

it used to conduct the initial search of the defendant’s computers so that the defendant could 

readily narrow the scope of his own search. As of October 11, the defendant will have had those 

key documents and the key word list for at least six months, and the bulk of discovery for longer.

The defendant correctly notes that due to an error in an email address provided to the 

government, the defendant did not receive emails from the government for a period of months. 

The defendant is incorrect, however, in attributing any delay in the receipt of discovery to this 

email address issue. All discovery to the defendant has been provided by FedEx. Initially, the 

government mailed a copy of discovery to the defendant’s homes in both Utah and Oregon, as 

well as provided a copy to standby counsel. Later, the government was informed to only send a 

copy of discovery to the defendant’s Oregon address and to standby counsel. All discovery was 

provided to the defendant on the dates cited above, well before the email address issue was 

identified.

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 Page 3 of 6
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE 

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 

SECOND MOTION TO 

CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE - 4

Nevertheless, the government did eventually identify and correct this email error and 

provided the defendant with prior emails that went to the wrong address. This did constitute a 

substantial number of pages. The defendant, however, appears focused more on the amount of 

material provided than on what the material contained. The emails contained copies of past 

pleadings the government had previously mailed to the defendant, not discovery materials.1

Finally, the government is sympathetic to any health issues members of the defendant’s 

family may be dealing with, but the government only first became aware of such an issue 

through the filing of the defendant’s instant Motion; no mention of his spouse’s health issues 

were made to the government in advance. Further, no mention is made in the defendant’s 

Motion as to the nature of the ailment.

The Speedy Trial Act protects both the rights of the defendant and the rights of the public

to a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) (“Any period of delay resulting from a 

continuance granted . . . at the request of the defendant . . . on the basis of . . . 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.” (emphasis added); Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 500-01 

(2006) (“[T]he [Speedy Trial] Act was designed with the public interest firmly in mind.”) 

Therefore, in consideration of the public’s right and the arguments above, the government 

respectfully requests the defendant’s Motion be denied.

 

1 There are two emails that contained non-pleading items. The first, sent April 27, 2016, contained the 29 

key documents referenced above. These documents had originally just been included in a FedEx to standby counsel 

earlier in April. The second, sent on May 12, 2016, contained copies of two memoranda of interview conducted 

during the government’s preparation for trial. It should be noted, however, the Mr. Iniguez was copied on both of 

those emails and has been copied on all correspondence the government has ever provided to the defendant.

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 Page 4 of 6
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE 

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 

SECOND MOTION TO 

CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE - 5

The government further requests a hearing on this matter and, in consideration of 

government counsel being located in Washington, D.C., respectfully asks for 48 hours advance 

notice of such hearing.

Dated this 8th day of September 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

BILLY J. WILLIAMS

United States Attorney

/s/ Stuart A. Wexler

STUART A. WEXLER

RYAN R. RAYBOULD

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division

(202) 305-3167

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 Page 5 of 6
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE 

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 

SECOND MOTION TO 

CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE - 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 8, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing 

to the attorney(s) of record for the defendant. Additionally, a copy of the foregoing was emailed 

to the defendant at milieannjones@gmail.com.

/s/ Stuart A. Wexler

Stuart A. Wexler

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 Page 6 of 6