Opinion
7:20-CR-00023 (WLS-TQL-1)
09-27-2021
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Before the Court is a “Joint Motion for Continuance and Request for Hearing” filed by the Parties in the above-styled action on September 24, 2021. (Doc. 21.) Therein, the Parties requests that the Court continue this case to the next available trial term. (Id.) In support of the request to continue this case, the Parties assert that discovery has recently begun, the Parties have not had time to assess the case, conduct full investigations, or file pre-trial motions. (Id.) Thus, the Parties request a continuance to allow additional time for the completion of discovery, file motions, and engage in plea negotiations. (Id.)
The Speedy Trial Act permits a district court to grant a continuance of the trial so long as the court makes findings that the ends of justice served by ordering a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Section 3161(h)(7)(B) provides a number of factors the Court must consider when granting a continuance. United States v. Ammar, 842 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2016). Among those factors are the likelihood that the lack of a continuance will result in a miscarriage of justice and the likelihood that failure to grant a continuance would deprive the defendant continuity of counsel or reasonable time necessary for effective preparation. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B).
The Court finds that the failure to grant a continuance would likely result in a miscarriage of justice, see 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), and would likely deny the Defendant's counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Accordingly, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by continuing trial outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendant's in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
Based on the above-stated reasons, the Court finds good cause to grant a continuance. Therefore, the Joint Motion for a Continuance (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. The Court finds that failure to grant the requested continuance would deny Defendant necessary preparations for trial, even assuming due diligence, and would likely result in a miscarriage of justice. It is ORDERED that the case is CONTINUED to the February 2022 trial term in Valdosta, Georgia, which begins February 7, 2021, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Court further ORDERS that the time from the date of this Order to the conclusion of the February 2022 Trial Term is EXCLUDED FROM COMPUTATION under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).
SO ORDERED.