United States v. Alva

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES SCOTT ALVA, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Nov 9, 2017

2:14-cr-00023-RCJ-NJK (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2017)

Opinion

2:14-cr-00023-RCJ-NJK

11-09-2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES SCOTT ALVA, Defendant.

ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge

ORDER

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court entered an order to continue the trial of this matter to January 16, 2018. (Order, ECF No. 262.) The Government now moves the Court to reconsider that order. (ECF No. 263.)

The pertinent facts are as follows. On November 7, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation for extension of time, as well as a proposed order granting that stipulation. (ECF No. 257.) Because the stipulation provided that Defendant had not consented to the proposed continuance, the Court contacted defense counsel and requested that Defendant sign the stipulation prior to the proposed order being signed by the Court. On November 8, 2017, defense counsel filed a revised stipulation and order, which Defendant had signed. However, Defendant had also made several handwritten interlineations, altering the content of the original stipulation to some extent. Finding Defendant had consented to the continuance, the Court granted the stipulation. (Order, ECF No. 262.)

The Government now objects on the ground that two of Defendant's interlineations suggest that the parties have violated Defendant's rights under the Speedy Trial Act:

However, on paragraphs three (3) and six (6) of the proposed order, Defendant added the handwritten words "violation by all parties," above the term "Speedy Trial Act." The Government did not review this additional handwritten language prior to the proposed order being filed and objects to its inclusion in the order as signed by this Court. There has been no agreement by the parties that there has been a "violation by all parties" of the Speedy Trial Act or that granting this continuance would result in a violation of the Speedy Trial Act. Therefore, the Government respectfully requests this Court to reconsider its Order and strike the objectionable handwritten additions.

(Mot. Recon. 2-3, ECF No. 263 (citations omitted).)

The Court grants the Government's motion, and strikes from its order, ECF No. 262, both interlineations of the phrase "violation by all parties." The remainder the order stands. Notwithstanding the stricken language, the Court finds that Defendant has consented to the trial continuance. In addition, regardless of Defendant's consent, the Court finds, under 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv), that the ends of justice served by the granting of the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. Were trial to proceed as scheduled on November 13, 2017, the Government would be deprived of an essential witness, and defense counsel would not be afforded the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to reconsider (ECF No. 263) is GRANTED consistent with the analysis above.

IT IS SO ORDERED This 9^th day of November, 2017.

/s/_________

ROBERT C. JONES

United States District Judge