Criminal Complaint — United States v. Carter (Dkt. 17, E.D. Mich. No. 2:22-mj-30125)

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
United States of America, 
Plaintiff, 
No. 22-mj-30125 
-vs-
Java Dominique Carter, 
Defendant. 
               / 
STIPULATION TO ADJOURN PRELIMINARY HEARING AND FOR 
DETERMINATION OF EXCLUDABLE DELAY UNDER 
THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND SUPPORTING BRIEF 
The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, and 
defendant Java Carter, through his attorney, move for an adjournment of the 
preliminary hearing to August 5, 2022 and an ends-of-justice continuance under 
the Speedy Trial Act.  In support, the parties state as follows: 
 
1. 
Defendant was arrested on the criminal complaint in this case on
March 15, 2022 , and he made his initial appearance on the criminal complaint on 
March 16, 2022.  Defendant was released on a $10,000 unsecured bond.  The 
preliminary hearing is currently scheduled to take place on June 6, 2022. 
2. 
The government and defendant are engaged in preindictment plea
negotiations that may result in a plea agreement which will eliminate the need for 
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 17, PageID.50   Filed 05/12/22   Page 1 of 7

- 2 -
this Court to conduct a preliminary hearing.  A preindictment plea agreement will 
also provide that defendant waive his right to be prosecuted by indictment and thus 
eliminate the need for the government to seek an indictment and consume grand 
jury resources.  In addition, a preindictment plea agreement will also eliminate the 
need for a trial. 
3.
A part of the plea negotiations involves defense counsel’s assessment of the
government’s case against defendant.  This assessment requires that defense 
counsel have the reasonable time necessary to adequately review the information 
provided and/or to be provided by the government and then confer with defendant.   
4.
In light of the above, the parties submit there is good cause to adjourn the
preliminary hearing.  Moreover, defendant has consented to this adjournment, and 
the adjournment sought is fairly limited.  See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(d) (“With the 
defendant’s consent and upon a showing of good cause – taking into account the 
public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases – a magistrate judge may 
extend the time limits in Rule 5.1(c) one or more times.”). 
5.
In addition, in light of the above, the parties submit that the ends of justice
served by a continuance of the 30-day arrest-to-indictment period under the Speedy 
Trial Act will outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy 
indictment.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (“The following periods of delay shall be 
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 17, PageID.51   Filed 05/12/22   Page 2 of 7

- 3 -
excluded in computing the time within which an information or an indictment must 
be filed: . . . (7) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any 
judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel, or at the 
request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance 
on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action 
outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy 
[indictment].”). Such a continuance would allow the parties to continue their 
preindictment plea negotiations without strict time constraints and pursue an 
expeditious and fair resolution of the government’s prosecution of defendant.  It 
would also likely result in the conservation of judicial and prosecutorial resources 
by eliminating the need for a preliminary hearing and in the conservation of grand 
jury and prosecutorial resources by eliminating the need for defendant to be 
prosecuted by way of a grand jury indictment.  And it would also likely result in 
the conservation of judicial and prosecutorial resources by eliminating the need for 
a trial. 
6.
Accordingly, the parties request that this Court find there is good cause to
adjourn the preliminary hearing in this case and order that the preliminary hearing 
be adjourned until August 5, 2022  The parties also request that this Court find, 
based on the information and explanation set forth above, that the ends of justice 
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 17, PageID.52   Filed 05/12/22   Page 3 of 7

- 4 -
served by a continuance of the 30-day Speedy Trial Act arrest-to-indictment period 
will outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy 
indictment.  The parties request that this ends-of-justice continuance begin on the 
date of this motion and continue through August 5, 2022 and that that period be 
deemed excludable delay pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). 
Respectfully submitted, 
Dawn N. Ison 
United States Attorney 
  s/ Craig Weier         
s/ Vincent Haisha (with consent) 
Craig Weier 
Assistant United States Attorney 
211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 
Detroit, MI 48226 
(313) 226-9678
craig.weier@usdoj.gov
Vincent Haisha 
Attorney for Java Carter 
155 W. Congress Street, Ste. 603 
Detroit, MI 48226 
(248) 547-1032
vhaisha@floodlaw.com
Dated:  May 12, 2022 
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 17, PageID.53   Filed 05/12/22   Page 4 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
United States of America, 
Plaintiff, 
No. 22-mj-30125 
-vs-
Java Dominique Carter, 
Defendant. 
               / 
ORDER 
This matter coming before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation to Adjourn 
Preliminary Hearing and for Determination of Excludable Delay under the Speedy 
Trial Act, and, for the reasons stated in the parties’ joint motion, the motion is 
granted. 
The Court finds, based on the information and explanation set forth in the 
stipulation, that there is good cause to adjourn the preliminary hearing in this case 
and orders that it be adjourned to August 5, 2022.  See Fed.R. Crim. P. 5.1(d). 
Specifically, the Court finds: 
1. The government and defendant are engaged in preindictment plea
negotiations that may result in a plea agreement which will eliminate the
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 17, PageID.54   Filed 05/12/22   Page 5 of 7

- 2 -
need for this Court to conduct a preliminary hearing.  A preindictment plea 
agreement will also provide that defendant waive his right to be prosecuted 
by indictment and thus eliminate the need for the government to seek an 
indictment and consume grand jury resources.  In addition, a preindictment 
plea agreement will also eliminate the need for a trial. 
2. A part of the plea negotiations involves defense counsel’s assessment of the
government’s case against defendant.  This assessment requires that defense
counsel have the reasonable time necessary to adequately review the
information provided and/or to be provided by the government and then
confer with defendant.
3. Moreover, defendant has consented to this adjournment, and the
adjournment sought is fairly limited.
In addition, for the reasons stated in the government’s motion, the Court
finds, based on the information and explanation set forth in the government’s 
motion, that the ends of justice served by a continuance of the 30-day Speedy Trial 
Act arrest-to-indictment period will outweigh the best interest of the public and the 
defendant in a speedy indictment.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).  Accordingly, the 
Court grants a continuance until August 5, 2022, and orders that the period from 
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 17, PageID.55   Filed 05/12/22   Page 6 of 7

- 3 -
June 6, 2022 to August 5, 2022 be deemed excludable delay pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3161(h)(7).
Elizabeth A. Stafford 
United States Magistrate Judge 
Dated: May 12, 2022
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 17, PageID.56   Filed 05/12/22   Page 7 of 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mied.360415.17.0.pdf

Size

183,691 bytes

SHA-256

f453883c1156912bceeb1b049082e6f68397aba33399c31cce1f47f5e60400c5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mied.360415.17.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)