Indictment — United States v. Andrew Marnell (Dkt. 28, C.D. Cal. No. 2:20-cr-00319)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00319-RGK · Doc. 28 · 2020-09-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

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
NICOLA T. HANNA 
United States Attorney 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
KERRY L. QUINN (Cal. Bar No. 302954) 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Major Frauds Section 
312 North Spring Street, 11th Floor 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-5423 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269 
E-mail: 
Kerry.L.Quinn@usdoj.gov 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
ANDREW MARNELL, 
 
Defendant. 
No. 2:20-CR-319-RGK 
STIPULATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR 
(1) CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE AND 
(2) FINDINGS OF EXCLUDABLE TIME 
PERIODS PURSUANT TO SPEEDY TRIAL 
ACT 
CURRENT TRIAL DATE: 
09/29/2020 
PROPOSED TRIAL DATE: 
05/11/2021 
 
 
 
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel 
of record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of 
California and Assistant United States Attorney Kerry L. Quinn, and 
defendant ANDREW MARNELL (“defendant”), both individually and by and 
through his counsel of record, Deputy Federal Public Defender Adithya 
Mani, hereby stipulate as follows: 
1. 
The Indictment in this case was filed on July 28, 2020.  
Defendant first appeared before a judicial officer of the court in 
which the charges in this case were pending on July 16, 2020.  The 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 28     Filed 09/15/20     Page 1 of 9   Page ID #:171

 
 
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
Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, originally required that the 
trial commence on or before October 6, 2020. 
2. 
On August 6, 2020, the Court set a trial date of September 
29, 2020. 
3. 
Defendant is detained pending trial.  The parties estimate 
that the trial in this matter will last approximately three to four 
days.   
4. 
By this stipulation, defendant moves to continue the trial 
date to May 11, 2021.   
5. 
Defendant requests the continuance based upon the following 
facts, which the parties believe demonstrate good cause to support 
the appropriate findings under the Speedy Trial Act: 
a. 
Defendant is charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1344(2) (bank fraud).  The government has produced discovery to the 
defense, including more than 6,000 pages of documents and additional 
digital files.  The discovery in the case includes, among other 
documents and records: agent reports, bank records, criminal history 
reports, search warrant documents, and documents and records from the 
Small Business Administration (SBA), the Treasury Inspector General 
for Tax Administration (TIGTA), credit rating agencies, casinos, 
state taxing authorities, secretaries of state, and internet service 
providers (ISPs).  The government will produce additional discovery 
as necessary in accordance with its discovery obligations.  Among 
other documents and records that the government anticipates producing 
are copies of approximately 20 digital devices that were seized from 
defendant’s residence on July 16, 2020, in connection with the 
execution of a search warrant at the residence that day.  The data 
from the digital devices is voluminous (agents currently estimate 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 28     Filed 09/15/20     Page 2 of 9   Page ID #:172

 
 
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 total volume of data on these devices will exceed 1 TB and 
likely will exceed 2 TBs), and is still in the process of being 
copied or “imaged.”  Some of the data is password protected, which 
has slowed the imaging process, and the number and variety of devices 
that were seized, and the different types of data on those devices, 
has also complicated the imaging process.  Two of the devices appear 
to belong to third party companies, and confidentiality concerns 
raised by those companies may require separate protective orders to 
govern data obtained from those devices.  The government also intends 
to use a filter team to review data from at least some of the 
devices, which will require additional time to complete production of 
discovery to defense.  The discovery in this case also includes a 
large amount of personal and confidential information and sensitive 
business information of third parties.  The redaction of all 
confidential information in the discovery would be prohibitively time 
consuming and might prevent defense counsel from obtaining a 
realistic view of these materials.  To address this issue, on August 
6, 2020, the parties entered into a stipulation to govern discovery 
in this matter, agreeing to restrict the use and dissemination of 
confidential information, and requesting entry of a protective order.  
On August 7, 2020, the Court entered the requested protective order 
(docket no. 25).  As a result of restrictions in the protective 
order, including restrictions on defendant’s access to confidential 
information, defense counsel has needed to review discovery with 
defendant personally, increasing the amount of time necessary to 
conduct an independent investigation of the case.  Defense counsel is 
also assessing the potential need for an expert to assist the defense 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 28     Filed 09/15/20     Page 3 of 9   Page ID #:173

 
 
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
in this case, and defense counsel needs additional time to complete 
this assessment and locate a suitable expert if one is needed. 
6. 
Defense counsel has other active matters preventing full 
preparation of this matter on the current schedule, including the 
following: 
a. 
United States v. Gallardo, 2:20-CR-141-DSF, a 
possession with intent to distribute drugs and possession of firearm 
case, scheduled for trial on October 6, 2020, and estimated to last 
2-3 days. 
b. 
United States v. Gray, 2:19-CR-772-CJC, a possession 
with intent to distribute drugs case, scheduled for trial on October 
6, 2020, and estimated to last 3 days. 
c. 
United States v. Jimenez-Contreras, 5:19-CR-345-CAS, a 
drug distribution case, scheduled for trial on December 1, 2020, and 
estimated to last 3 days. 
d. 
United States v. Arzate, 2:18-CR-898-DMG, a possession 
of firearm case, scheduled for trial on January 19, 2021, and 
estimated to last 2-3 days.    
e. 
United States v. Ramos, 2:17-CR-701-GW, a felon-in-
possession and stolen mail case, scheduled for trial on February 23, 
2021, and estimated to last 2-4 days. 
f. 
United States v. Garcia-Moreno, 2:20-CR-230-SVW, a 
multi-defendant drug distribution conspiracy case, scheduled for 
February 23, 2021, and estimated to last 3 days. 
g. 
United States v. Perez, 8:18-CR-86-CJC, a felon-in-
possession case, scheduled for trial on August 17, 2021, and 
estimated to last 2-3 days. 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 28     Filed 09/15/20     Page 4 of 9   Page ID #:174

 
 
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
7. 
The government also submits that the following facts 
support a continuance of the trial date and findings regarding 
excludable time pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A):  
a. 
As both the California governor and Los Angeles mayor 
have recognized, California is in the midst of a grave public-health 
emergency requiring people to take extreme measures to limit contact 
with one another.  On March 4, 2020, as part of the state’s response 
to the global COVID-19 outbreak, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a 
State of Emergency in California.  On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom 
declared a statewide lockdown to address the rapid spread of COVID-19 
throughout the state.  Official public health guidance continues to 
evolve on a near daily basis. 
b. 
On March 13, 2020, the Central District of California 
entered a General Order suspending jury selection and jury trials 
scheduled to begin before April 13, 2020. C.D. Cal. General Order No. 
20-02, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order Concerning Jury 
Trials and Other Proceedings (March 13, 2020).  The same day, the 
Court entered another General Order imposing health- and travel-
related limitations on access to Court facilities. C.D. Cal. General 
Order No. 20-03, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order 
Concerning Access to Court Facilities (March 13, 2020). On March 19, 
2020, by Order of the Chief Judge, the Court instituted its 
Continuity of Operations Plan (“COOP”), closing all C.D. Cal. 
courthouses to the public (except for hearings on criminal duty 
matters) and taking other emergency actions though May 1, 2020. C.D. 
Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-042 (March 19, 2020), as 
extended on June 26, 2020. 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 28     Filed 09/15/20     Page 5 of 9   Page ID #:175

 
 
6 
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
c. 
On March 29, 2020, by Order of the Chief Judge, the 
Court found “that emergency conditions due to the COVID-19 virus 
outbreak will materially affect the functioning of the courts within 
the Central District of California.”  C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief 
Judge No. 20-043 (March 29, 2020). 
d. 
On April 13, 2020, the Court extended the COOP through 
June 1, 2020. C.D. Cal. General Order 20-05 (April 13, 2020). 
e. 
On May 28, 2020, the Court extended the activation of 
the COOP Plan and adopted a three-phase re-opening plan. C.D. Cal. 
General Order 20-08, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order 
Concerning Phased Reopening of the Court (May 28, 2020).  On August 
3, 2020, the Court further extended the activation of the COOP Plan, 
and reaffirmed the three-phase opening plan.  C.D. Cal. General Order 
20-09, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order Concerning Phased 
Reopening of the Court, at 2 (August 3, 2020).  Phase 1, which had 
been completed as of August 3, 2020, contemplated the return of 
certain staff to the courthouses to prepare for limited in-court 
hearings.  Phase 2, which began on June 22, 2020, contemplated 
reopening courthouses for limited in-court hearings.  The last phase 
(Phase 3) contemplates the resumption of jury trials, but the date 
for the transition to this last phase has not been determined.  As a 
result, no Judge in this District will be able to hold any criminal 
trials until the Court enters Phase 3 of the reopening plan.  As of 
the date of the filing of this stipulation, the Court has yet to set 
a date for the resumption of jury trials. 
8. 
In light of the foregoing, defense counsel represents that 
additional time is necessary to confer with defendant, conduct and 
complete an independent investigation of the case, assess the need 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 28     Filed 09/15/20     Page 6 of 9   Page ID #:176

 
 
7 
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
for and, if necessary, retain an expert to assist the defense in this 
case, conduct and complete additional legal research including for 
potential pre-trial motions, review the discovery and potential 
evidence in the case, and prepare for trial in the event that a 
pretrial resolution does not occur.  Defense counsel represents that 
failure to grant the continuance would deny him reasonable time 
necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise 
of due diligence. 
9. 
Defendant believes that failure to grant the continuance 
will deny him continuity of counsel and adequate representation. 
10. 
The government does not object to the continuance. 
11. 
The requested continuance is not based on congestion of the 
Court’s calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of the 
attorney for the government or the defense, or failure on the part of 
the attorney for the Government to obtain available witnesses.  
12. 
For purposes of computing the date under the Speedy Trial 
Act by which defendant’s trial must commence, the parties agree that 
the time period of September 29, 2020 to May 11, 2021, inclusive, 
should be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), 
(h)(7)(B)(i), and (h)(7)(B)(iv), because the delay results from a 
continuance granted by the Court at defendant’s request, without 
government objection, on the basis of the Court’s finding that: 
(i) the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best 
interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial; (ii) failure 
to grant the continuance would be likely to make a continuation of 
the proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice; and 
(iii) failure to grant the continuance would unreasonably deny 
defendant continuity of counsel and would deny defense counsel the 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 28     Filed 09/15/20     Page 7 of 9   Page ID #:177

 
 
8 
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
reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into 
account the exercise of due diligence. 
13. 
Nothing in this stipulation shall preclude a finding that 
other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time 
periods be excluded from the period within which trial must commence.  
Moreover, the same provisions and/or other provisions of the Speedy 
Trial Act may in the future authorize the exclusion of additional 
time periods from the period within which trial must commence. 
IT IS SO STIPULATED. 
 
 
Dated: September 15, 2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dated: September 15, 2020 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
NICOLA T. HANNA 
United States Attorney 
 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
 
      /s/ 
 
KERRY L. QUINN 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
 
 
  /s/ by email permission     
 
ADITHYA MANI 
Deputy Federal Public Defender 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
ANDREW MARNELL 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 28     Filed 09/15/20     Page 8 of 9   Page ID #:178

 
 
9 
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 am ANDREW MARNELL’s attorney.  I have discussed this 
stipulation and the continuance of the trial date with my client.  I 
have fully informed my client of his Speedy Trial rights.  To my 
knowledge, my client understands those rights and agrees to waive 
them.  I believe that my client’s decision to give up the right to be 
brought to trial earlier than May 11, 2021 is an informed and 
voluntary one. 
 
ADITHYA MANI 
Deputy Federal Public Defender 
Attorney for Defendant 
ANDREW MARNELL 
Date 
 
9/15/2020
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 28     Filed 09/15/20     Page 9 of 9   Page ID #:179

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.28.0.pdf

Size

127,852 bytes

SHA-256

b099d8390d56b1510645ea422b083eec1a673f8f9038553dccc3b4d2dbb8fa14

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.28.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)