Joint Motion to Continue Motion Hearing — U.S. v. Bhakta, 3:21-cr-03352 (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 34

Summary

Joint Motion to Continue Motion Hearing, filed 07/11/22 as Document 34 in Case 3:21-cr-03352, Southern District of California, in the case against Denny Bhakta. The parties ask to continue the Motion Hearing and Trial Setting from July 15, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., to August 12, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino, with time excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. The reasons given are that the most recent discovery production contains hundreds of documents to be analyzed, that discovery motions have been filed, and that the parties seek a continuance of approximately 5 weeks. The motion says Mr. Bhakta is out of custody on bond. It carries the signature lines s/ Sandra Resnick and s/Eric Olah.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Cake 3:21-cr-03352-JLS Document 34 Filed 07/11/22 PagelD.116 Page 1 of 3

SANDRA RESNICK
California State Bar No. 89901
270 East Douglas Avenue

El Cajon, California 92020
Telephone: (619) 401- 4067
Facsimile: (619) 442-7439
sresn@cox.net

Attorney for Denny Bhakta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO.: 21CR3352-JLS
Plaintiff, Hon. JANIS L. SAMMARTINO
Vv. JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
MOTION HEARING
DENNY BHAKTA,
Defendant.

IT IS HEREBY JOINTLY MOVED by the parties that the Motion
Hearing and Trial Setting currently scheduled for July 15, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. be
continued to August 12, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Janis L.
Sammartino. The parties also jointly move to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18
U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).

Section 3161(h) excludes certain periods of time in calculating the 70 days. That
includes delay resulting from a continuance if the court finds “the ends of justice served by
taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The court must “set [] forth ... either orally or in writing, its

reasons” for the finding. Id. The court “shall consider” the following factors, “among others”:

(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
Cc

—

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28

Se 3:21-cr-03352-JLS Document 34 Filed 07/11/22 PagelD.117 Page 2of3

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.

(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 or the attorney for the Government the reasonable
time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the existence of
due diligence.

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B). “No continuance under [this provision] shall be granted because of
general congestion of the court’s calendar, or lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain

available witnesses on the part of the attorney for the Government.” U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(C).

The ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best

interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, for the following reasons:

a. The most recent discovery production contains hundreds of documents which
need to be analyzed to determine if additional discovery will be sought or if a resolution
can be reached.

b. Discovery motions have been filed.

c. The parties seek to continue the hearing for approximately 5 weeks.

d. The parties have exercised due diligence. For the reasons above, failure to
grant the requested continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for
effective preparation and result in a miscarriage of justice.

e. Due to the volume of discovery, there have been prior continuances of the
Motion Hearing/Trial Setting in this case.

Counsel for defendant represents that she has discussed the need for this
continuance with Mr. Bhakta, who is out of custody on bond. Mr. Bhakta agrees to and
joins in the request for this continuance.

The parties therefore jointly move for a continuance and to exclude time under the

Speedy Trial Act. The parties agree the period of delay excluded spans from the filing of this

2 -JLS

JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE MOTION HEARING
Cébe 3:21-cr-03352-JLS Document 34 Filed 07/11/22 PagelD.118 Page 3 of 3

MY Ne NY NY NY NY N DY NOR eee ee a a

joint motion, U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D), until the new date for the hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: July 11, 2022, s/ Sandra Resnick
Attorney for Mr. Bhakta

DATED: July 11, 2022, s/Eric Olah
Assistant United States Attorney

3

JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE MOTION HEARING


File and source

File

34.pdf

Size

929,564 bytes

SHA-256

bfa4c616482a1ba4cc55ab08699fa256d0c00d0e895321df5392c4492c68247a

Our copy

34.pdf

Original

No public link identified.