Opinion ID: 821098
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: March 2, 2011 Continuance Motion

Text: Villarreal argues that the district court clearly erred in concluding that the government's March 2, 2011 request for a continuance would best serve the ends of justice and was therefore excludable from the speedy-trial calculation. First, he argues that the government's representations were not based on current information from Fosness because Olson last talked to Fosness the first or second week of February -16- and failed to check with Fosness prior to filing the March 2 motion. But the record reflects that Olson attempted to contact Fosness again at the end of February and that Fosness was unavailable. For that reason, Olson spoke with Petersen, who indicated that she had not seen the report. Olson could reasonably rely on Petersen's representation. Furthermore, the report was not technically available until March 9, 2011, seven days after Olson filed the continuance motion. Second, Villarreal argues that Olson's representation that the report would be completed by March 15 was misleading because Olson left the impression with Villarreal and the court [that she] had talked with Fosness, contemporaneously to [the government's] motion when, in fact, [she] had not. But the record reflects that Fosness indicated to Olson that the report would by ready by March 15 when Olson spoke with Fosness during the first or second week of February. Due to Fosness's unavailability at the end of February and Petersen's subsequent representation that she had not yet seen the report as of the end of February, Olson could reasonably rely on Fosness's prior representation that the report would be completed around March 15, 2011. Third, Villarreal argues that the district court ignored evidence the prosecution had another case set for trial March 29, . . . a week after Villarreal's scheduled trial, had not yet begun preparations for Villarreal's trial, and the prosecutor assigned to Villarreal's case, Olson, would be leaving the United States Attorney's office after the March 29 trial. He also asserts that the court ignored Villarreal's showing [that] his treatment was in line with the apparent pattern and practice of the prosecution to buy time by delaying submission of evidence for testing. Villarreal, however, ignores that the report was not actually ready for viewing until March 9, 2011, seven days after Olson filed the continuance motion. -17-