Opinion
7:21-CR-00002 (WLS-TQL-1)
09-27-2021
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Before the Court is an “Unopposed Motion for Continuance in the Interests of Justice” filed by Defendant Ricardo Perez-Molina in the above-styled action on September 24, 2021. (Doc. 25.) Therein, Counsel for the Defendant requests that the Court continue this case to the next available trial term. (Id.) In support of the request to continue this case, Defendant's Counsel asserts that additional time is needed to complete a review of discovery, investigate the case, and engage in plea negotiations. (Id.) In addition, Defendant's Counsel notes that the Government does not oppose a continuance. (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 Unopposed Motion for Continuance (Doc. 25) 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.