Indictment — United States v. Andrew Marnell (Dkt. 33, 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. 33 · 2021-08-07 · 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 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
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: 
08/24/2021 
PROPOSED TRIAL DATE: 
09/21/2021 
 
 
 
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 33     Filed 08/07/21     Page 1 of 7   Page ID #:199

 
 
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 August 24, 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 September 21, 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 nearly 7,000 pages of documents, which includes a 
large volume of digital files.  The discovery in the case includes, 
among other documents and records: agent reports, bank records 
including loan applications and supporting documents, 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 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 33     Filed 08/07/21     Page 2 of 7   Page ID #:200

 
 
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
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 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.   
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 33     Filed 08/07/21     Page 3 of 7   Page ID #:201

 
 
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
6. 
Defense counsel has other active matters preventing full 
preparation of this matter on the current schedule, including the 
following: 
a. 
United States v. Hayes, Case No. CR 19-370-PSG, a drug 
distribution case, scheduled to begin trial on August 26, 2021, where 
trial is estimated to last 2-3 days; 
b. 
United States v. Bando, Case No. CR 20-425-ODW, a bank 
fraud case, scheduled to begin trial on September 28, 2021, where 
trial is estimated to last 2-3 days;  
c. 
United States v. Lyons, Case No. CR 20-596-FMO, an 
identity theft case, scheduled to begin trial on October 5, 2021, 
where trial is estimated to last 2-3 days;  
d. 
United States v. Hutchins, Case No. CR 21-204-SB (a 
felon in possession of a firearm case, scheduled to begin trial on 
October 14, 2021, scheduled to begin trial on October 14, 2021, where 
trial is estimated to last three days.  
e. 
United States v. Verdugo, Case No. 21-245-SB, a drug 
distribution case, scheduled to begin trial on October 26, 2021, 
where trial is estimated to last 4 days;  
f. 
United States v. Xing, Case No. CR 20-228-ODW, a sex 
trafficking case, scheduled to begin trial on October 14, 2021, where 
trial is estimated to last 7-10 days. 
7. 
Defendant also requests the continuance based upon the 
following facts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which the parties 
also believe demonstrate good cause to support the appropriate 
findings under the Speedy Trial Act: 
a. 
In March 2020, the Central District of California 
suspended jury trials and adopted many other restrictions to reduce 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 33     Filed 08/07/21     Page 4 of 7   Page ID #:202

 
 
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
exposure to the COVID-19 virus and slow its spread.  The measures 
were necessary to protect health and safety. 
b. 
Jury trials have resumed.  See C.D. Cal. General Order 
No. 21-07, at 3 ¶ 3 (Apr. 15, 2021).  However, there is a substantial 
backlog of cases that were 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 limit the number of jury trials 
that can be conducted simultaneously.  General Order 21-07, at 2-3 
¶ 4.  
c. 
Based on continued public health concerns and the 
adoption of safety protocols limiting 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.  The parties stipulate to that fact, 
and it is consistent with the Central District's finding.  General 
Order 21-07, at 3 ¶ 4.  The parties further stipulate that under the 
extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 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 request for a continuance. 
d. 
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 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 33     Filed 08/07/21     Page 5 of 7   Page ID #:203

 
 
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
likely put parties, witnesses, jurors, venirepersons, counsel, and 
Court personnel at risk.  The government does not object to the 
request for a continuance. 
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 August 24, 2021, to September 21, 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 
periods be excluded from the period within which trial must commence.  
Moreover, the same provisions and/or other provisions of the Speedy  
// 
// 
// 
// 
// 
// 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 33     Filed 08/07/21     Page 6 of 7   Page ID #:204

 
 
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
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: August 6, 2021 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dated: August 6, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
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    
 
NEHA CHRISTERNA* 
Deputy Federal Public Defender 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
ANDREW MARNELL 
 
 
* Counsel for defendant is signing on behalf of her client. 
Counsel will obtain the defendant’s signature as soon as possible and 
file with the Court. 
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 33     Filed 08/07/21     Page 7 of 7   Page ID #:205

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.33.0.pdf

Size

146,313 bytes

SHA-256

b632887bf7b49b86ec2d32cc2ac394818f6df7144553d2bd0cf63aec8a164f74

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.33.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)