UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. Criminal No. 07-189-GZS 

DANIEL RILEY, JASON GERHARD and 

CIRINO GONZALEZ, 

 Defendants 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GONZALEZ’S 

MOTION TO RECONSIDER REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE 

Defendant Gonzalez has filed a Motion to Continue Trial (Docket No. 403) and a Motion 

to Clarify his Motion to Continue Trial (Docket No. 405). The stated basis for the first Motion to 

Continue Trial was that “counsel is scheduled to start a jury trial in this court on June 3, 2008 

(U.S. v. McFadden, et al.; 1:06-cr-226-02). Trial is expected to last two weeks. Counsel’s 

schedule precludes a trial in these matters earlier than August.” Before the Court ruled on the 

Motion to Continue, Defendant Gonzalez filed a Motion to Clarify Request for Continuance 

elucidating two points: (1) that “trial in this matter should take no longer than four or five days” 

and (2) “this counsel is scheduled to draw a jury on August 4, 2008 in a case that 

should only take five days...[such that] [t]rial on or after the week of August 17, 2008 is 

practicable considering everyone’s schedule.” Motion to Clarify his Motion to Continue Trial at 

1. Thereafter, the Court granted the Motion to Clarify and denied the Motion to Continue. 

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 419 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 3
 Defendant has now filed a Motion to Reconsider Request for Continuance. (Docket No. 

415). In the instant Motion, Defendant states, in pertinent part: 

4. As indicated in the prior request, counsel is scheduled to select a jury in this 

Court on June 3, 2008 (U.S. v. McFadden, et al., 1:06-cr-226-02-PB). Trial is 

scheduled to commence on June 9, 2008 and 2 weeks has been reserved for trial. 

5. Due to this trial schedule, it would simply be impossible to select a jury on June 

18, 2008 and begin trial on June 23, 2008. Counsel could not adequately prepare 

in the time frames currently scheduled. Even assuming that the other matter is 

somehow resolved, counsel for the defendant still could not adequately prepare 

this case in the time frames currently scheduled. 

6. In addition, counsel has personal matters scheduled at the University of 

Maryland in the late June time frame. 

7. Additional time in which to prepare for trial is needed to afford the defendant 

effective assistance of counsel. 

In considering Defendant Gonzalez’s Motion, the Court has reflected on the fact that this 

is a retrial of two Counts that counsel tried less than a month ago. In addition, the Court believes 

that counsel has ample time to prepare to try the case in the almost two months between now and 

the June 23, 2008 trial date. The Court notes that, other than his unavailability the week of 

August 4, 2008 because he is scheduled for trial in another case, counsel has failed to provide, in 

the three separate filings, any precise reason for continuing the trial until mid-August.1 With 

respect to the potential conflict between the trial in United States v. McFadden, 06-226 and jury 

selection in this case, both cases are to be tried at the United States District Court in Concord 

New Hampshire and the Court will deal with any scheduling issues that arise if jury selection 

overlaps with the presentation of evidence or argument in United States v. McFadden, 06-226. 

 

1

 Because of the vagueness of counsel’s statement regarding “personal matters at the University of Maryland in the 

late June time frame”, the Court is unable to consider that aspect of the Motion. 

2

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 419 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendant Gonzalez’s Motion to Reconsider 

Request for Continuance be, and it is hereby, DENIED. 

 

/s/ George Z. Singal__________________ 

 Chief United States District Judge 

Dated this 6th day of May, 2008. 

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 419 Filed 05/06/08 Page 3 of 3