Ends of Justice Scheduling Order granting 13 Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadlines — USA v. Clark (Dkt. 14, E.D. Tenn.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee · No. 1:21-cr-00069-CEA-CHS · Doc. 14 · 2021-09-14 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
 
AT CHATTANOOGA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
     Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
DONNA J. CLARK, 
 
     Defendant. 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
Case No. 1:21-cr-69 
 
Judge Atchley 
 
Magistrate Judge Steger 
 
ENDS OF JUSTICE ORDER 
 
Before the Court is Defendant Donna Clarks’ Unopposed Motion to Continue [Doc. 13], 
requesting to continue the trial date and all associated deadlines in this matter by 30-days. The 
Speedy Trial Act requires a criminal defendant’s trial to begin within (70) days of the defendant’s 
initial appearance or indictment, but excludes from that time certain types of delay. Bloate v. 
United States, 559 U.S. 196 (2010); see 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161. Section 3161(h) lists certain 
excludable delays, including a continuance granted by the Court based on the Court’s 
determination that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the interests of 
the public and of the defendant in a speedy trial. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In making this determination, 
the Court must consider certain factors listed in § 3161(h)(7)(B),1 including whether “the failure 
 
1  
(B) The factors, among others, which a judge shall consider in determining whether to grant a continuance 
under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph in any case are as follows: 
 
(i) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation 
of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice. 
 
(ii) Whether 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. 
 
(iii) Whether, in a case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the filing of the indictment is caused 
because the arrest occurs at a time such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of the indictment within the 
period specified in section 3161(b), or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base its determination are 
unusual or complex. 
 
(iv) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or 
so complex as to fall within clause (ii), would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel, would 
unreasonably deny the defendant or the Government continuity of counsel, or would deny counsel for the defendant 
Case 1:21-cr-00069-CEA-CHS     Document 14     Filed 09/14/21     Page 1 of 3     PageID
#: 45

2 
 
to grant such a continuance . . . would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the 
Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the 
exercise of due diligence.” Id. “[A]lthough the order need not be lengthy,” the court must state 
“with particularity” the reasons for granting an ends of justice continuance. United States v. Smith, 
510 F. App’x 390, 395 (6th Cir. 2013).   
 
Here, Defendant’s counsel explains that she recently received 500 pages of supplemental 
discovery from the Government; and more time is needed to review, summarize, and discuss the 
supplemental discovery with the Defendant. [Doc. 18]. Defendant’s counsel explains that the 
Defendant needs to review all of the discovery in order to make a fully informed decision as to 
whether to proceed to trial. [Id.]. The Government is not opposed to the requested continuance. 
[Id.].  
 
Based on these circumstances, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting 
the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. 
Specifically, the Court finds that the failure to grant the requested continuance would deny 
Defendant’s attorney the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into 
consideration the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).  
 
Accordingly, the Unopposed Motion to Continue [Doc. 13] is GRANTED and the 
following new trial schedule is ORDERED for Defendant Donna Clark: 
 
Defendant’s Pretrial Motions Due: 
 
December 21, 2021 
 
Plea Deadline:  
 
 
 
December 21, 2021 
 
Jury Instructions Due:  
 
 
January 4, 2021 
 
Final Pretrial Conference 
 
 
January 4, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. 
 
Trial 
 
 
 
 
 
January 11, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. 
 
 
or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the 
exercise of due diligence. 
 
 
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B).  
Case 1:21-cr-00069-CEA-CHS     Document 14     Filed 09/14/21     Page 2 of 3     PageID
#: 46

3 
 
The parties are DIRECTED to refer to the requirements of the Discovery and Scheduling Order 
[Doc. 6], all other provisions of which remain in full effect. 
 
 
SO ORDERED. 
 
/s/ Charles E. Atchley, Jr. 
 
__ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHARLES E. ATCHLEY, JR. 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 1:21-cr-00069-CEA-CHS     Document 14     Filed 09/14/21     Page 3 of 3     PageID
#: 47

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.tned.100793.14.0.pdf

Size

178,946 bytes

SHA-256

2b9a297c951b428d7cb81c0106cdf5b02a9abb4b4f69c8845fcab929f71913f6

Our copy

gov.uscourts.tned.100793.14.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)