UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

BRIAN HAYWOOD AND

MARQUEES FRENCH 

Case No. 20 CR 546

Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Chief Judge

GOVERNMENT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RETURN INDICTMENT

The United States of America, by its attorney, JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR., 

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully submits 

this motion to the Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), for a 35-day 

extension of time, to and including November 24, 2020, in which to seek the return 

of an indictment against defendant Darius Young, for the following reasons:

Background

1. The defendant was arrested and charged by criminal complaint on 

Tuesday, August 25, 2020. The complaint charges the defendants with selling and 

otherwise disposing of a firearm to a person, knowing and having reasonable cause 

to believe such person was convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment of a 

term exceeding one year in, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 

922(d)(1).

2. A detention hearing was held on August 28, 2020, and pursuant to an 

agreement between the parties, the Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan ordered the 

defendants released on conditions pending trial. (Docs. 10 and 11).
3. As set forth in the affidavit in support of the complaint, the FBI is 

investigating the extent of the defendants’ involvement in straw purchasing 

firearms for residents of the Chicagoland area from federal licensed firearms 

dealers in Indiana. 

Argument

4. Under the Speedy Trial Act, the government must file any information 

or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense within 

thirty days from the date on which the individual was arrested. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). 

The deadline for the Grand Jury to return an indictment is currently September 24, 

2020.

5. The Speedy Trial Act permits the extension of time to return an 

indictment “upon the request of the attorney for the government if the Court finds 

that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of 

the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” Id. § 3161(h)(7)(A); see also United 

States v. Adams, 625 F.3d 371, 378-79 (7th Cir. 2010). Among the non-exclusive 

factors a court may consider are:

Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of 

defendants [or] the nature of the prosecution . . . that it is unreasonable 

to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial 

itself within the time limits established by this section.

Whether, in a case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the 

filing of the indictment is caused because the arrest occurs at a time 

such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of the indictment 

within the period specified in section 3161(b), or because the facts upon 

which the grand jury must base its determination are unusual or 

complex.
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 counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the 

Government the reasonable time necessary for the effective preparation, 

taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), (iii), and (iv).

6. The government respectfully submits that one 35-day continuance is 

warranted in this case pursuant to the foregoing provisions, and specifically the 

provision which allows for a continuance where the government needs reasonable 

additional time to prepare effectively for the return of an indictment, taking into 

account the exercise of due diligence.

7. For the reasons set forth in the ex parte sealed Attachment to this 

Motion, the government respectfully requests an additional 35 days for the Grand 

Jury to return an indictment against defendant any additional defendants. This is 

the government’s first request for an extension of time. 

8. The government has consulted with counsel for both defendants, who 

have no objection to this motion. 
Conclusion

For these reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this Court 

grant this Motion and extend the time for the return of an indictment against the 

defendants to, and including, October 29, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR.

United States Attorney

By: /s/Albert Berry III 

ALBERT BERRY III

Assistant United States Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street, Room 500

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Tel: (312) 886-7855

Dated: September 23, 2020