Opinion
CRIMINAL 22-CR-477(PGS)
02-14-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HENRY ROJAS
KELLY M. LYONS Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice THOMAS R. CALCAGNI, ESQ. Counsel for Defendant Henry Rojas
KELLY M. LYONS
Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice
THOMAS R. CALCAGNI, ESQ.
Counsel for Defendant Henry Rojas
SCHEDULING ORDER
HONORABLE PETER G. SHERIDAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter having come before the Court on the joint application of the United States, by Philip R. Sellinger, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (by Kelly M. Lyons and Patrick Queenan, Trial Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section, appearing), and defendant Henry Rojas (Thomas R. Calcagni, Esq., appearing), for an order granting a continuance of proceedings in the above-captioned matter; and the Defendant being aware that he has the right to have this matter brought to trial within 70 days of the date of his appearance before a judicial officer of this court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1); and the Defendant having consented to such continuance and having waived such right; and for good cause shown, IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for the following reasons:
1. This case is an unusual or complex case within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(B)(ii), in light of the nature of the prosecution such that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within 70 days.
2. The discovery in the case is voluminous, consisting of, among other things, seized digital evidence, financial records, health care benefit program claims data, and medical records, and additional time is necessary to ensure that, taking into account the exercise of diligence, defense counsel has sufficient time to review and inspect discovery and further investigate the charges in this matter.
3. The grant of a reasonable continuance will allow the United States and the Defendant to engage in plea negotiations. A resolution by way of a plea would render a trial unnecessary.
4. The failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the Government the reasonable time necessary to effectively prepare for motion practice and/or trial, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
5. As a result of the foregoing, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(ii) and (iv), the ends of justice served by the granting of this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial.
IT IS, therefore, on this 14 day of February, 2022, (1) ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued until March 31, 2023; and it is further
(2) ORDERED that the period from February 24, 2022 through March 31, 2023, be and it hereby is excluded in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq.