Order — No. 3:19-cr-00065 (Dkt. 390, N.D. Miss.)

Summary

An order in United States v. Derrick Houston, No. 3:19-CR-65-11, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, filed March 8, 2021 as Doc. 390 (2 pages) and signed by Judge Debra M. Brown. The Court denies the defendant's February 19, 2021 motion [385] asking it to find the case complex within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). It finds nothing in the Act that provides for or requires certifying a case as complex, and states that it will instead review the reasons offered for each continuance when each request is made.

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: 3:19-cr-00065-DMB-RP Doc #: 390 Filed: 03/08/21 1 of 2 PageID #: 1424




                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.                                                                                        NO. 3:19-CR-65-11

DERRICK HOUSTON


                                                    ORDER

        On February 19, 2021, Derrick Houston filed a motion asking the Court “to find that this

case is a complex case within the meaning” of the Speedy Trial Act, specifically, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).1 Doc. #385 at 2.

         “Although certification is not expressly provided for in the plain language of the Speedy

Trial Act, some courts have, in fact, certified cases as being complex.” United States v. Cardenas-

Guillen, No. 00-118-S1-01, 2007 WL 760385, at *3 n.4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2007) (collecting cases).

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), the complexity of a case is a factor a court should consider

in determining whether to grant an ends-of-justice continuance.

        The Court has reviewed the plain text of the Speedy Trial Act and finds no mechanism in

subparagraph (h)(7)(B)(ii), or any other provision, which provides for or requires the

“certification” of a case as complex. Rather, subparagraph (h)(7)(B)(ii) merely directs that the

complexity of a case be used as a relevant factor in determining whether to exclude a delay

attributable to a specific continuance. In the absence of any authority providing for or requiring

“certification” under the Speedy Trial Act, the Court declines to “certify” this case as complex for




1
 The motion’s introductory paragraph also mentions 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Both subsections fall under the ends-
of-justice continuance provisions.
        Case: 3:19-cr-00065-DMB-RP Doc #: 390 Filed: 03/08/21 2 of 2 PageID #: 1425




purposes of the ends-of-justice inquiry.2 Accordingly, the motion to certify [385] is DENIED.3

           SO ORDERED, this 8th day of March, 2021.

                                                                  /s/Debra M. Brown
                                                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




2
    This Court instead will review the proffered reasons for each continuance requested at the time each request is made.
3
  Houston may have intended to have this case declared complex for other reasons. See, e.g., 7A Admin. Office of
the U.S. Cts., Guide to Judiciary Policy § 230 (2021). But his motion fails to mention complexity in any context
beyond the Speedy Trial Act.

                                                             2


File and source

File

390.pdf

Size

112,566 bytes

SHA-256

a0d8135461f417eb07f090a6595b5ca7cba49a2d50b9619724a81a4bca6e9cbe

Our copy

390.pdf

Original

No public link identified.