Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20160122_0000668.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-19 08:38:39
Document Index: 142159741

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 3161']

3. IVAN DOMINGUEZ-QUEZADA, Defendant.
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S AMENDED SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENDS OF JUSTICE CONTINUANCE
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Amended Second Unopposed Motion for Ends of Justice Continuance (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 328). The Defendant’s Motion requests a 60-day ends of justice continuance of the deadlines as set forth in the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174, and for a continuance of the trial date and deadline to file motions. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
The Speedy Trial Act is “designed to protect a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy indictment and trial, and to serve the public interest in ensuring prompt criminal proceedings.” United States v. Hill, 197 F.3d 436, 440 (10th Cir. 1999). It requires that a criminal defendant’s trial commence within 70 days after his indictment or initial appearance, whichever is later. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1); United States v. Lugo, 170 F.3d 996, 1001 (10th Cir. 1999). Certain periods of delay are excluded and do not count toward the 70-day limit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)-(8). Specifically, “the Act excludes any period of delay ‘resulting from a continuance granted by any judge . . . on the basis of its 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.’” Hill, 197 F.3d at 440-441 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)).
In order for a continuance to qualify as an excludable “ends of justice” continuance under § 3161(h)(7)(A), certain prerequisites must be satisfied. Hill, 197 F.3d at 441. First, the Court must consider the following factors listed in § 3161(h)(7)(B):
After considering these factors, the Court must then set forth, "in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." Hill, 197 F.3d at 441; &sect; 3161(h)(7)(A). Although the Court&rsquo;s findings &ldquo;may be entered on the record after the fact, they may not be made after the fact.&rdquo; Hill, 197 F.3d at 441 (quoting United States v. Doran, 882 F.2d 1511, 1516 (10th Cir.1989)). “Instead, ‘[t]he balancing must occur contemporaneously with the granting of the continuance because Congress intended that ...