Case Information
*1 Case 3:23-cr-00703-JO Document 304 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.1053 Page 1 of 2 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 23-cr-0703-JO Plaintiff, ORDER CONTINUING MOTION v. HEARING/TRIAL SETTING AND DECLARING CASE COMPLEX CARLOS ADOLFO MARIN (2);
ARIANA ARCE-CORRALES (6); MARCO ANTONIO SANCHEZ
HERNANDEZ, JR. (8);
YESENIA CASTREJON-RAMIREZ (10); BERNARDO VALDEZ-BELTRAN (11);
GUILLERMO CARLOS TEJEDA (14);
MINERVA ACEVEDO (18); PRISCILLIANO ABANZA (19);
ANGEL LARA RODRIGUEZ (20),
Defendants.
On April 10, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue the Motion Hearing/Trial Setting currently set for April 12, 2024 to August 2, 2024. For good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the joint motion to continue [Dkt. 303] and sets the Motion Hearing/Trial Setting on August 2, 2024 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).
23-cr-0703-JO *2 Case 3:23-cr-00703-JO Document 304 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.1054 Page 2 of 2 1 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 August 2, 2024 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. Dated: _______________ ___________________________ 4/10/2024
Hon. Jinsook Ohta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23-cr-0703-JO