Joint Motion to Continue trial by David Antonetti — USA v. Antonetti (Dkt. 36, M.D. Fla.)

Summary

A Joint Motion to Continue Trial, Document 36, in Case No. 5:24-cr-317-VMC-AEP, United States of America v. David Antonetti, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Defendant David Antonetti and the United States jointly move to continue the trial set for the November 2024 trial calendar, stating that the parties are in the process of resolving this matter through a plea agreement. They ask the Court to set a status conference in January 2025. The memorandum of law cites 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) of the Speedy Trial Act. The motion is signed /s/ Diego M. Pestana as counsel for Defendant David Antonetti, with a certificate of service dated November 6, 2024.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
TAMPA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
                   Case No. 5:24-cr-317-VMC-AEP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
DAVID ANTONETTI 
_______________________________/ 
 
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 
 
 
Defendant David Antonetti and the United States jointly move to continue trial 
currently set for the November 2024 trial calendar. The ends of justice are served by 
continuing trial because the parties are in the process of resolving this matter through 
a plea agreement. As a result, the parties respectfully ask that the Court enter an order 
continuing the November 2024 trial and set this matter for a status conference in 
January 2025.  
Memorandum of Law  
The Ends of Justice are Served by Continuing Trial 
The Speedy Trial Act allows the Court to continue a criminal trial if the Court 
finds “that 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). Among 
the factors to consider include whether not granting a continuance will likely “make a 
continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice”; 
whether the case is so complex “that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation 
for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by [the 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 36     Filed 11/06/24     Page 1 of 3 PageID 70

 
2 
 
Speedy Trial Act]”; and whether not granting a continuance “would unreasonably 
deny counsel for the defendant . . . the reasonable time necessary for effective 
preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.” See § 3161(h)(7)(B); see 
also United States v. Ragland, 434 F. App’x 863, 866–67 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming 
district court’s issuance of three sua sponte continuances where the court “timely and 
adequately explained its reasons for the continuances on the record”).  
The ends of justice are served by continuing the November 2024 trial and 
outweigh the public’s interest in a speedy trial in this case because the parties are in 
the process of resolving this matter through a plea agreement. Additional time to draft, 
review, and finalize a plea agreement will allow the parties to ensure that this matter 
is successfully resolved. If a plea agreement is finalized, no need for a trial will exist. 
As a result, the Court should continue trial in the interests of justice.  
Conclusion 
 
The ends of justice are best served by continuing trial so that the parties may 
resolve this matter through a plea agreement. Therefore, the parties respectfully ask 
that the Court enter an order continuing the current November 2024 trial date. The 
parties request that the Court set this matter for a status conference in January 2025.  
Respectfully submitted, 
/s/ Diego M. Pestana_________  
Diego M. Pestana 
Florida Bar #1004436 
THE SUAREZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 
1011 West Cleveland Street 
Tampa, FL  33606 
Telephone: (813) 229-0040 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 36     Filed 11/06/24     Page 2 of 3 PageID 71

 
3 
 
Facsimile: (813) 229-0041 
dpestana@suarezlawfirm.com 
Counsel for Defendant David Antonetti 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 6, 2024, a copy of this 
document was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the 
Court’s electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. 
Parties may access this filing through the Court’s electronic filing system. 
 
/s/ Diego M. Pestana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Diego M. Pestana  
 
 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 36     Filed 11/06/24     Page 3 of 3 PageID 72

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.429938.36.0.pdf

Size

84,446 bytes

SHA-256

2cf09b5c050fbc29da59ecd9565eb5fe86766bad6190e2cfe84a5e740f724ac7

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.429938.36.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)