Unopposed Motion to Exclude 180 Days from Speedy Trial Calculation by Chandler Simbeck — USA v. Foreman (Dkt. 32, D. Colo.)

Record facts

Full text

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
__ 
1 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO  
 
Criminal Case Number 21-cr-165-RM-2 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,     
Plaintiff,     
vs. 
CHANDLER SIMBECK, 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION TO EXLUDE 180 DAYS FROM THE 
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT 
 
 
 
 
Defendant, Chandler Simbeck, through counsel respectfully requests that this court 
issue an order excluding 180 days form the Speedy Trial Act computations and re-set the 
motions filing and trial dates accordingly.  The following information is presented in support 
of this motion. 
 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
 
On May 18, 2021 the Mr. Simbeck and his co-defendant Mr. Foreman were indicted in 
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  The indictment charges Mr. 
Simbeck with one count of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and one count of Wire 
Fraud.  An arrest warrant was issued for both defendants on that same day.  Co-defendant 
Foreman had his initial appearance on May 26, 2021 before Magistrate Judge Kato.  On June 
2, 2021 an order was issued setting the case for a jury trial on August 2, 2021.  On June 24, 
2021 counsel for co-defendant Foreman filed an Unopposed Motion to Exclude 180-days from 

 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
__ 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
the Requirements of the Speedy Trial Act.  On July 2, 2021 this court granted co-defendant 
Foreman’s motion. Trial was re-set to January 31, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. 
 
Mr. Simbeck was arrested on September 21, 2021 in the District of Pennsylvania.  He 
was released in the District of Pennsylvania with conditions on September 26, 2021.  On 
November 4, 2021 Mr. Simbeck was ordered to appear for an initial appearance on November 
18, 2021.  Mr. Simbeck appeared on bond and entered a not guilty plea to the charges against 
him.  On November 24, 2021 this court applied the previously scheduled trial setting to Mr. 
Simbeck.  In addition, Mr. Simbeck was given a motions deadline of December 10, 2021. 
 
LAW 
 
Under 18 U.S.C §3161(h)(7) this court is authorized to exclude time from the limitations 
set by the Speedy Trial Act if the ends of justice served by such a delay outweigh the best 
interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.  One factor the court may consider is 
“[w]hether the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a 
continuation of such proceedings impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice.”  18 U.S.C. 
§3161(h)(7)(B)(i).  In addition, the court may consider whether the failure to grant such a delay 
“would deny counsel for the defendant…the reasonable time necessary for effective 
preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.”  18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).  
In evaluating a request for an ends of justice continuance, “the record must clearly establish the 
district court considered the proper factors at the time such a continuance was granted.”  United 
States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262, 1269 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Gonzales, 137 
F.3d 1431, 1433 (10th Cir. 1998)).  The record must contain an explanation for why the 
occurrence of the event identified by the moving party as necessitating the continuance results 
in the need for additional time.  Id. at 1271.  Simply stating the event followed by a conclusory 
statement that the event necessitates further time does not satisfy the requirements of the Speedy 
Trial Act.  Id. at 1271-1272.   
 
The Tenth Circuit has set fourth four factors a court should consider when evaluating if 
a continuance should be granted.  United States v. West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1470 (10th Cir. 1987).  
Those factors are:  (1) the diligence of the party requesting the continuance; (2) the likelihood 

 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
__ 
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
that the continuance, if granted, would accomplish the purpose underlying the request for 
continuance; (3) the inconvenience to the opposing party, its witnesses and the court resulting 
from the continuance; and (4) the need asserted for the continuance and the harm that could be 
suffered as a result of the court’s denial of the continuance.   
 
ARGUMENT 
 
The defendant’s motion satisfies the factors set forth in both 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7) and 
United States v. West.   
 
With respect to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7), the ends of justice served by this requested delay 
outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant.  Counsel would be unable to 
effectively represent the Mr. Simbeck under the current deadlines.  As of the writing of this 
motion, counsel has not received discovery in this case.  Counsel is unable to advise Mr. 
Simbeck in any capacity without having a meaningful opportunity to review discovery and 
investigate possible defenses to these charges.   
 
This motion also satisfies the factors outlined in United States v. West.  (1) Counsel has 
been diligent.  As previously noted, counsel has not had the opportunity to review discovery in 
this case and is awaiting discovery from United States Attorney’s Office.  (2). The granting of 
this continuance would allow counsel time to receive and review discovery and adequately 
prepare a defense for Mr. Simbeck.  (3)  There is no inconvenience to the United States 
Attorney’s Office.  Undersigned counsel contacted Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Brown via 
electronic mail on December 6, 2021 and his indicated that he did not oppose this motion.  (4) 
Mr. Simbeck would suffer harm if this motion is not granted as he would be denied an adequate 
defense to the charges.   
 
CONCLUSION  
 
As this court is aware, the date for trial in this case was ordered over 4-months before 
Mr. Simbeck ever appeared in this district.  A review of previous pleadings in this case indicates 
that there is a significant amount of discovery in this case.  Once received, review of discovery 
will take a significant time to review.  Undersigned counsel contacted counsel for co-defendant 

 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
__ 
4 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Foreman via electronic mail.  Ms. Butterton indicated that she joins in this motion.  For these 
reasons counsel respectfully requests that 180-days be excluded form Speedy Trial calculations 
and that the motions deadline and trial date be re-set accordingly.   
 
Dated at Denver, Colorado this 7th day of December 2021 
 
s/ Luis Jorge Castañeda 
Jorge Castañeda 
 
CO Bar #49232 
CASTAÑEDA LAW  
999 18th St., Suite 3000 
Denver, CO 80202 
Tel (303) 386-7136 
Fax (602) 532-7427  
jorge@lawyersazco.com 
 
Attorney for the Defendant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
__ 
5 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
I hereby certify that the foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the 
court via ECF this 7th day of December 2021.   
s/ Luis Jorge Castaneda        
JORGE CASTAÑEDA 
Attorney for Defendant

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.206978.32.0.pdf

Size

113,284 bytes

SHA-256

d8a83508ae5d5ef292af4682e889de0963fdbfbe524038f716ed53ceeb63190f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.206978.32.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)