Criminal Complaint - United States v. Carter PPP fraud case (2023-02-02)

Summary

A stipulation to adjourn the preliminary hearing and for determination of excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act, with a proposed order, in United States of America v. Java Dominique Carter, No. 2:22-mj-30125, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, filed February 2, 2023 as ECF No. 23. The parties state that the defendant was arrested on the criminal complaint on March 15, 2022, was released on a $10,000 unsecured bond, and is engaged with the government in preindictment plea negotiations. They ask that the preliminary hearing be moved from February 3, 2023 to April 4, 2023 and that the period be excluded under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). The order signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman grants the request and deems that period excludable delay.

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

Full text

     Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 23, PageID.87 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 7




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                           SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America,

                    Plaintiff,                      No. 22-mj-30125
-vs-

Java Dominique Carter,

                    Defendant.
                                            /

     STIPULATION TO ADJOURN PRELIMINARY HEARING AND FOR
          DETERMINATION OF EXCLUDABLE DELAY UNDER
          THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND SUPPORTING BRIEF


        The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, and

defendant Java Carter, through his attorney, move for an adjournment of the

preliminary hearing and an ends-of-justice continuance under the Speedy Trial Act.

In support, the parties state as follows:

1.      Defendant was arrested on the criminal complaint in this case on

March 15, 2022 , and he made his initial appearance on the criminal complaint on

March 16, 2022. Defendant was released on a $10,000 unsecured bond. The

preliminary hearing is currently scheduled to take place on February 3, 2023

2.      The government and defendant are engaged in preindictment plea

negotiations that may result in a plea agreement which will eliminate the need for
     Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 23, PageID.88 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 7




this Court to conduct a preliminary hearing. A preindictment plea agreement will

also provide that defendant waive his right to be prosecuted by indictment and thus

eliminate the need for the government to seek an indictment and consume grand

jury resources. In addition, a preindictment plea agreement will also eliminate the

need for a trial.

3.      A part of the plea negotiations involves defense counsel’s assessment of the

government’s case against defendant. This assessment requires that defense

counsel have the reasonable time necessary to adequately review the information

provided and/or to be provided by the government and then confer with defendant.

4.      In light of the above, the parties submit there is good cause to adjourn the

preliminary hearing. Moreover, defendant has consented to this adjournment, and

the adjournment sought is fairly limited. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(d) (“With the

defendant’s consent and upon a showing of good cause – taking into account the

public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases – a magistrate judge may

extend the time limits in Rule 5.1(c) one or more times.”).

5.      In addition, in light of the above, the parties submit that the ends of justice

served by a continuance of the 30-day arrest-to-indictment period under the Speedy

Trial Act will outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy

indictment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (“The following periods of delay shall be


                                           -2-
     Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 23, PageID.89 Filed 02/02/23 Page 3 of 7




excluded in computing the time within which an information or an indictment must

be filed: . . . (7) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any

judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel, or at the

request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance

on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy

[indictment].”). Such a continuance would allow the parties to continue their

preindictment plea negotiations without strict time constraints and pursue an

expeditious and fair resolution of the government’s prosecution of defendant. It

would also likely result in the conservation of judicial and prosecutorial resources

by eliminating the need for a preliminary hearing and in the conservation of grand

jury and prosecutorial resources by eliminating the need for defendant to be

prosecuted by way of a grand jury indictment. And it would also likely result in

the conservation of judicial and prosecutorial resources by eliminating the need for

a trial.

6.         Accordingly, the parties request that this Court find there is good cause to

adjourn the preliminary hearing in this case and order that the preliminary hearing

be adjourned from February 3, 2023 to April 4, 2023 The parties also request that

this Court find, based on the information and explanation set forth above, that the


                                             -3-
  Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 23, PageID.90 Filed 02/02/23 Page 4 of 7




ends of justice served by a continuance of the 30-day Speedy Trial Act arrest-to-

indictment period will outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in

a speedy indictment. The parties request that this ends-of-justice continuance

begin on the date of this motion and continue through April 4, 2023 and that that

period be deemed excludable delay pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).

Respectfully submitted,

Dawn N. Ison
United States Attorney

s/ Craig Weier                             s/ Vincent Haisha (with consent)
Craig Weier                                Vincent Haisha
Assistant United States Attorney           Attorney for Java Carter
211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001             155 W. Congress Street, Ste. 603
Detroit, MI 48226                          Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 226-9678                             (248) 547-1032
craig.weier@usdoj.gov                      vhaisha@floodlaw.com


Dated: February 2, 2023




                                        -4-
  Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 23, PageID.91 Filed 02/02/23 Page 5 of 7




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                           SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America,

                    Plaintiff,                 No. 22-mj-30125
-vs-

Java Dominique Carter,

                    Defendant.
                                         /


                                       ORDER

       This matter coming before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation to Adjourn

Preliminary Hearing and for Determination of Excludable Delay under the Speedy

Trial Act, and, for the reasons stated in the parties’ joint motion, the motion is

granted.

       The Court finds, based on the information and explanation set forth in the

stipulation, that there is good cause to adjourn the preliminary hearing in this case

and orders that it be adjourned from February 3, 2023 to April 4, 2023. See Fed.R.

Crim. P. 5.1(d). Specifically, the Court finds:

   1. The government and defendant are engaged in preindictment plea

       negotiations that may result in a plea agreement which will eliminate the
  Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 23, PageID.92 Filed 02/02/23 Page 6 of 7




      need for this Court to conduct a preliminary hearing. A preindictment plea

      agreement will also provide that defendant waive his right to be prosecuted

      by indictment and thus eliminate the need for the government to seek an

      indictment and consume grand jury resources. In addition, a preindictment

      plea agreement will also eliminate the need for a trial.

   2. A part of the plea negotiations involves defense counsel’s assessment of the

      government’s case against defendant. This assessment requires that defense

      counsel have the reasonable time necessary to adequately review the

      information provided and/or to be provided by the government and then

      confer with defendant.

   3. Moreover, defendant has consented to this adjournment, and the

      adjournment sought is fairly limited.

      In addition, for the reasons stated in the government’s motion, the Court

finds, based on the information and explanation set forth in the government’s

motion, that the ends of justice served by a continuance of the 30-day Speedy Trial

Act arrest-to-indictment period will outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy indictment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). Accordingly, the

Court grants a continuance until April 4, 2023, and orders that the period from




                                        -2-
  Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 23, PageID.93 Filed 02/02/23 Page 7 of 7




February 3, 2023 to April 4, 2023 be deemed excludable delay pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).



                                            s/Kimberly G. Altman
                                            Kimberly G. Altman
                                            United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: February 2, 2023




                                      -3-


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mied.360415.23.0.pdf

Size

189,379 bytes

SHA-256

78a47044059702a061f3f1f5293d945ad71c89159900ebdd5b8cf05301164197

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mied.360415.23.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)