Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings USA v. Davis USA v. Davis — U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia Consent Motion to Certify Case as "Complex" Under the Speedy Trial Act by USA — USA v. Davis (Dkt. 13, E.D. Va.)

Court filing

Consent Motion to Certify Case as "Complex" Under the Speedy Trial Act by USA — USA v. Davis (Dkt. 13, E.D. Va.)

Filed March 7, 2024 in USA v. Davis; one of 63 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Filed2024-03-07

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · No. 1:24-cr-00040-PTG · Doc. 13 · 2024-03-07 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORr»+e
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
.
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
CRAIG DAVID DAVIS,
Defendant.
 . 
l^iL^o
W OPEN COURT
»«R - 7 2024
CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA
Case No. l;24-CR-40 (PTG)
CONSENT MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO
CERTIFY CASE AS "COMPLEX" UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
With the consent of the defendant, the United States respectfully moves that the Court
certify this case as "complex" under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 316I(h)(7)(B)(ii), and to
set a trial date accordingly.
Under the Speedy Trial Act, trial of a defendant charged in an indictment "shall commence
within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or
from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge
is pending, whichever date last occurs." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). Nonetheless, this Court may
schedule a trial beyond the 70-day time limit of the Speedy Trial Act where "the ends of justice
served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy
trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In determining whether the ends ofjustice are so served, this
Court shall consider whether a "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
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG     Document 13     Filed 03/07/24     Page 1 of 4 PageID# 62

the time limits established by this section." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii); see United States v.
Reavis, 48 F.3d 763, 771 (4th Cir. 1995). Under this standard, the instant case is sufficiently
complex to render a trial date outside the normal Speedy Trial Act limits appropriate.
BASIS FOR MOTION
The indictment charges the defendant, Craig Davis, with four counts of wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The indictment arises out of a lengthy investigation involving
pandemic-relief loans sought by the defendant.
There is substantial evidence underlying this case that will be produced in discovery. This
is due to the nature of the wire fraud charges in the case and the underlying allegations of loan
fraud. The United States anticipates producing hundreds of thousands of pages in discovery,
including extensive financial records, financial analysis, other investigative records, and interview
reports. The parties may also need to retain expert witnesses for this case which would also present
timing issues.
Given the volume of the evidence in this case the government anticipates that the provision
and review of the discovery will be sufficiently time-consuming to render it "unreasonable to
expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits
established by the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3r61(h)(7)(B)(ii). Counsel for the defendant,
who is not in custody, has been advised of the substance of this motion, and has consented to its
filing.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the United States, with the consent of the defendant, respectfully requests
that the Court designate the case as "complex"; and that it further find that the ends of justice are
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG     Document 13     Filed 03/07/24     Page 2 of 4 PageID# 63

best served by scheduling a trial date beyond the 70-day deadline set forth in the Speedy Trial Act.
The parties have discussed their availability and anticipate that at the arraignment of this matter,
they will ask the Court to set a trial date in October 2024.
Respectfully submitted,
Jessica D. Aber
United States Attorney
/s/
Kathleen E. Robeson
Assistant United States Attomey
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG     Document 13     Filed 03/07/24     Page 3 of 4 PageID# 64

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 7,2024,1 filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using
the CM/ECF system, which will send an electronic notification to all counsel of record.
/s/
Kathleen E. Robeson
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Phone: 703-299-3700
Fax: 703-299-3982
Email: kathleen.robeson@usdoj.gov
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG     Document 13     Filed 03/07/24     Page 4 of 4 PageID# 65

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.vaed.549455.13.0.pdf
Size
343,068 bytes
SHA-256
9c99dadcca1576fa96ed8cd14e5b01d93b697850cee8e90cd6f563d1902adf49
Our copy
gov.uscourts.vaed.549455.13.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top