United States v. Gage
1:22-cr-00245
E.D. Cal.May 18, 2023Background
- Sentencing in United States v. Derrick Gage was set for July 10, 2023; the parties jointly requested a continuance and an ends-of-justice exclusion under the Speedy Trial Act.
- The Eastern District of California issued General Orders (including 611, 612, 617, 618) and a declaration of judicial emergency suspending jury trials and permitting continuances because of COVID‑19.
- Zedner v. United States requires on-the-record, case-specific findings for any Speedy Trial Act § 3161(h)(7) ends-of-justice exclusion.
- The General Orders allow district-wide and case-by-case scheduling adjustments but do not, by themselves, satisfy the Act’s requirement for individualized, on-the-record findings.
- Defense counsel stated additional time was needed to prepare for sentencing; the government did not object. The court issued a proposed findings-and-order to document the exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do district-wide General Orders alone satisfy § 3161(h)(7)’s on-the-record finding requirement? | General Orders addressing COVID justify exclusions and allow continuances. | Zedner requires individualized on-the-record findings; General Orders are insufficient alone. | General Orders must be supplemented by case-specific on-the-record findings to exclude time. |
| Can a pandemic/public‑health emergency justify an ends-of-justice continuance? | The COVID emergency supports continuances to protect health and operations. | Pandemic may justify continuance but an ends-of-justice finding must be made in each case. | A public‑health emergency can justify exclusion, but the judge must explain on the record and limit the continuance. |
| Does a stipulated continuance based on defense counsel’s need and government non‑objection justify excluding time? | The parties’ stipulation and counsel’s need justify the continuance; government does not oppose. | Defense asserts need for reasonable time for effective preparation. | Court accepted the stipulation and entered findings/order documenting the ends-of-justice exclusion and new sentencing scheduling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006) (Speedy Trial Act requires on-the-record findings for ends-of-justice continuances)
- United States v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2000) (judge must set forth explicit findings for ends-of-justice continuances)
- Furlow v. United States, 644 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1981) (natural disasters can justify short ends-of-justice continuances)
- United States v. Correa, 182 F. Supp. 2d 326 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (September 11 emergency supported an exclusion, citing Furlow)
- United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2010) (pretrial continuances must be specifically time-limited)