Opinion
23-cr-0703-JO
10-23-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CARLOS ADOLFO MARIN (2); ARIANA ARCE-CORRALES (6); BERNARDO VALDEZ-BELTRAN (11); GUILLERMO CARLOS TEJEDA (14); MINERVA ACEVEDO (18); PRISCILLIANO AB ANZA (19); ANGEL LARA RODRIGUEZ (20), Defendants.
ORDER CONTINUING MOTION HEARING/TRIAL SETTING AND DECLARING CASE COMPLEX
Jinsook Ohta Judge.
On October 22, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue the Motion Hearing/Trial Setting currently set for October 25, 2024 to January 31, 2025. For good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the joint motion to continue [Dkt. 392] and sets the Motion Hearing/Trial Setting on January 31, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.
For the reasons set forth in the joint motion, the Court finds that the ends of justice will be served by granting the requested continuance, and these outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Accordingly, the delay occasioned by this continuance is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
Further, on May 24, 2023, Defendant Ariana Arce-Corrales filed a pretrial motion that remains pending. Additionally, numerous Co-Defendants have also filed pretrial motions that remain pending. Accordingly, the Court finds that time from May 24, 2023 to January 31,2025 shall be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act on grounds that a pretrial motion is pending. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D). This time is excluded as to the Co-Defendants. United States v. Messer, 197 F.3d 330, 336 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well established that an exclusion from the Speedy Trial clock for one defendant applies to all codefendants.”).
Additionally, based on the reasons stated in the parties' joint motion and after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), the Court GRANTS the parties' joint motion to continue to declare this case complex. United States v. McCarns, 900 F.3d 1141, 1144 n.4. (9th Cir. 2018) (“Section 3161 (h)(7)(B)(ii) instructs a district court to consider ‘ [w]hether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section.'”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.