Indictment — United States v. Andrew Marnell (Dkt. 31, 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. 31 · 2021-04-29 · 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
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting 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: 
05/11/2021 
PROPOSED TRIAL DATE: 
08/24/2021 
 
 
 
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel 
of record, the Acting 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 
Neha Christerna, 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 31     Filed 04/29/21     Page 1 of 10   Page ID #:185

 
 
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.  The Court has previously continued the trial date in this 
case from September 29, 2020 to May 10, 2021, and found the interim 
period to be excluded in computing the time within which the trial 
must commence, pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act. 
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 August 24, 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 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 31     Filed 04/29/21     Page 2 of 10   Page ID #:186

 
 
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
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 
that the total volume of data on these devices exceeds 1 TB).  Some 
of the data is password protected, which has complicated the imaging 
process, and the number and variety of devices that were seized, and 
the different types of data on those devices, has also extended the 
time necessary to process the data.  The government is also using a 
filter team to review data from at least some of the devices, which 
requires 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.   
6. 
Defense counsel has other active matters preventing full 
preparation of this matter on the current schedule, including the 
following: 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 31     Filed 04/29/21     Page 3 of 10   Page ID #:187

 
 
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
a. 
United States v. Davon Tyrie DeBose, CR 20-441-SB, a 
mail theft case, scheduled to begin trial on May 3, 2021, and 
estimated to last 1-2 days. 
b. 
United States v. Alexis Tapia, CR 20-595-SVW, a felon 
in possession of a firearm case, scheduled to begin trial on May 4, 
2021, and estimated to last 1-2 days. 
c. 
United States v. Jesus Francisco Gutierrez, CR 140-GW, 
a drug distribution case, scheduled to begin trial on May 4, 2021, 
and estimated to last 3-5 days. 
d. 
United States v. Marcus Allen Jeffries, CR 20-141-JAK, 
a felon in possession of a firearm case, scheduled to begin trial on 
May 11, 2021, and estimated to last 2-3 days. 
e. 
United States v. Jeremyah C. James, CR 21-167-GW, a 
conspiracy to defraud the United States and bank fraud case, 
scheduled to begin trial on May 18, 2021, and estimated to last 3-5 
days. 
f. 
United States v. Henry Hayes, CR 19-370-PSG, a drug 
distribution case, scheduled to begin trial on May 25, 2021, and 
estimated to last 3-4 days. 
g. 
United States v. Donald E. Jaramillo, CR 20-231-MCS, a 
drug distribution case, scheduled to begin trial on June 15, 2021, 
and estimated to last 3-4 days. 
h. 
United States v. Giovanni Hernandez, CR 21-023-JWH, a 
drug distribution case, scheduled to begin trial on June 21, 2021, 
and estimated to last 3-4 days. 
i. 
United States v. Semion Bando, CR 20-425-ODW, a bank 
fraud case, scheduled to begin trial on June 29, 2021, and estimated 
to last 3-4 days. 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 31     Filed 04/29/21     Page 4 of 10   Page ID #:188

 
 
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
j. 
United States v. Arthuro Teodoro Gonzalez, ED 20-230-
SB, a drug distribution case, scheduled to begin trial on July 13, 
2021, and estimated to last 3-4 days. 
k. 
United States v. Semaj Hall, CR 20-152-FMO, a 
possession of a destructive device case, scheduled to begin trial on 
August 10, 2021, and estimated to last 1-3 days. 
l. 
United States v. Rosendo Arriaga Flores, CR 20-365-
FMO, a drug distribution case, scheduled to begin trial on September 
14, 2021, and estimated to last 3-4 days. 
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. 
On March 13, 2020, following the President’s 
declaration of a national emergency in response to COVID-19, the 
Court entered a General Order suspending jury selection and jury 
trials.  C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-02 (Mar. 13, 2020).   
b. 
The suspension of jury trials was one of the many 
health and safety restrictions adopted in response to COVID-19.  
During the pandemic, the Court has imposed limitations on access to 
Court facilities, suspended grand jury proceedings, and maximized the 
use of video-teleconference and telephonic hearings.  See, e.g., C.D. 
Cal. General Order No. 20-03 (Mar. 13, 2020); C.D. Cal. Order of the 
Chief Judge No. 20-042 (Mar. 19, 2020); C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief 
Judge No. 20-043 (Mar. 29, 2020); C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge 
No. 20-044 (Mar. 31, 2020); C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-08 (May 
28, 2020); C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-09 (Aug. 6, 2020); C.D. 
Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179 (Dec. 7, 2020); C.D. Cal. 
Order of the Chief Judge No. 21-002 (Jan. 6, 2021); C.D. Cal. Order 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 31     Filed 04/29/21     Page 5 of 10   Page ID #:189

 
 
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
of the Chief Judge No. 21-031 (Mar. 16, 2021); C.D. Cal. General 
Order No. 21-03 (Mar. 19, 2021).     
c. 
The Court’s orders were based on the California 
Governor’s declaration of a public-health emergency in response to 
COVID-19 and the Centers for Disease Control’s guidance to reduce 
exposure to the virus and slow its spread.  See, e.g., General Order 
20-02, at 1; Chief Judge Order 20-042, at 1-2; General Order 20-09, 
at 1.  Local conditions necessitated an especially robust response.  
California has reported over 3.5 million COVID-19 cases and 
approximately 60,000 deaths.  See https://covid19.ca.gov/state-
dashboard/.  The Central District of California has been one of the 
hardest hit areas in the nation, with over 2 million reported cases 
and approximately 40,000 deaths.  See https://www.nytimes.com/ 
interactive/2021/us/california-covid-cases.html.  State and local 
orders at various times during the pandemic have required residents 
to stay home, prohibited travel, closed businesses, and suspended in-
person schooling.  See, e.g., California Executive Order N-33-20 
(Mar. 19, 2020); Safer at Home, Public Order Under City of Los 
Angeles Emergency Authority (Mar. 19, 2020); California Regional Stay 
at Home Order 12/03/2020 (Dec. 3, 2020); Blueprint for a Safer 
Economy, https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/.  At the height of the 
pandemic, ICU availability in the Central District of California 
dropped to 0.0%.  Chief Judge Order 21-002, at 1. 
d. 
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has likewise 
adopted aggressive procedures to protect federal inmates and combat 
the spread of COVID-19.  The BOP’s response has included facility 
lockdowns, quarantine and isolation measures, restrictions on inmate 
movement and visitation, and a nationwide vaccination campaign. 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 31     Filed 04/29/21     Page 6 of 10   Page ID #:190

 
 
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
e. 
Given these facts, the Central District suspended jury 
trials to protect public health, reduce the size of public 
gatherings, and avoid unnecessary travel.  See General Order 20-09, 
at 1.  Now, based on improving conditions and data trends documented 
in accordance with California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy, the 
Central District has entered the final phase (Phase 3) of its phased 
reopening plan.  In the Southern Division, jury trials will resume on 
May 10, 2021.  C.D. Cal. General Order No. 21-07, at 3 ¶ 3(a) (Apr. 
15, 2021).  In the Western and Eastern Divisions, jury trials will 
resume on June 7, 2021.  See id., at 3 ¶ 3(b). 
f. 
As these measures reflect, the coronavirus pandemic is 
a global emergency that is unprecedented in modern history.  The 
COVID-19 pandemic has required people to take extreme measures to 
limit contact, and the Central District of California suspended jury 
trials to safeguard public health.  Jury trials have not yet resumed, 
and even once they do, there will be a substantial backlog of cases 
that have been continued to protect the public.  Moreover, the 
Central District has designed COVID-related jury trial protocols “to 
protect the health and safety of all trial participants,” and those 
protocols will limit the number of jury trials that can be conducted 
simultaneously.  General Order 21-07, at 2-3 ¶ 4.   
g. 
Based on continued public health concerns and the 
adoption of safety protocols that will limit the number of jury 
trials in order to maintain social distancing and protect all trial 
participants, a continuance of the trial date in this matter will 
serve the ends of justice and outweigh the interests of the public 
and defendant in a speedy trial.  General Order 21-07, at 3 ¶ 4.  
Under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 31     Filed 04/29/21     Page 7 of 10   Page ID #:191

 
 
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
requested continuance is not based on general congestion of the 
Court’s calendar, lack of diligent preparation by counsel, or any 
failure on the part of the government to obtain available witnesses.  
The government does not object to the continuance. 
h. 
Failure to grant the requested continuance would 
likely make a continuation of the proceeding impossible or result in 
a miscarriage of justice, particularly given the need for a complete 
and continuously serving jury, which is central to the sound 
administration of justice.  Failure to grant a continuance would also 
likely put parties, witnesses, jurors, venirepersons, counsel, and 
Court personnel at risk.   
8. 
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 May 11, 2021 to August 24, 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 reasonable time necessary for 
effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due 
diligence. 
9. 
Nothing in this stipulation shall preclude a finding that 
other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 31     Filed 04/29/21     Page 8 of 10   Page ID #:192

 
 
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
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: April 28, 2021 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dated: April 28, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting 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 
 
 
 
 
 
       
 
NEHA CHRISTERNA 
Deputy Federal Public Defender 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
ANDREW MARNELL 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 31     Filed 04/29/21     Page 9 of 10   Page ID #:193

 
 
10 
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 August 24, 2021 is an informed and 
voluntary one. 
 
NEHA CHRISTERNA 
Deputy Federal Public Defender 
Attorney for Defendant 
ANDREW MARNELL 
Date 
 
4/28/2021
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 31     Filed 04/29/21     Page 10 of 10   Page ID
#:194

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.31.0.pdf

Size

220,871 bytes

SHA-256

5018d483ff578088c430611a50b85eacbfdb0c18b81db39638c357314195c0a0

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.31.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)