Stipulation and Order to Continue the Plea Cut-off, and Trial and Find Excludable Delay — United States v. Samuel George Baker, No. 20-20433 (Dkt. 42, E.D. Mich.)
Summary
This stipulation and order, ECF No. 42 filed November 17, 2021 in United States v. Samuel George Baker, Case No. 20-20433 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, continues the plea cut-off from November 16, 2021 to January 4, 2022 at 4:00PM and continues the trial indefinitely. The stipulation, signed by Assistant United States Attorney Ryan A. Particka and defense attorney Steven E. Scharg, states that the parties are in plea negotiations and that defense counsel needs time to review discovery and the government's pending Rule 11 plea offer. In the attached order, entered November 17, 2021, Judge Arthur J. Tarnow finds that the time from November 16, 2021 to January 4, 2022 is excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) and directs the parties to tell the court when the reasons for the continuance no longer exist.
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 2:20-cr-20433-PDB-APP ECF No. 42, PageID.184 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court
Eastern District of Michigan
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 20-20433
v.
Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow
Samuel George Baker,
Defendant,
Stipulation and Order to Continue the
Plea Cut-off, and
Trial and Find Excludable Delay
The parties stipulate to continue the current plea cut-off date from November
16, 2021 (rescheduled by the Court from October 27, 2021), to January 4, 2022, at
4:00PM; and the trial date indefinitely, to a date to be later determined by the
Court. The parties further stipulate, and jointly move for the Court to find, that the
time period between the prior plea cut-off date of November 16, 2021, the new
date of January 4, 2022, qualifies as excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act,
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7), because the ends of justice served by the granting of the
this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a
speedy trial. The parties’ reasons for the continuance and for a finding of
excludable delay are as follows:
Case 2:20-cr-20433-PDB-APP ECF No. 42, PageID.185 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 4
The parties are presently engaged in plea negotiations and defense counsel
has requested additional time to review discovery with his client and
determine whether the government’s pending Rule 11 plea offer is in the
defendant’s best interest.
As a result, failure to grant a continuance could lead to the dismissal of
charges and thereby make a continuation of the proceeding impossible and
result in a miscarriage of justice and deny counsel for the defendant or the
attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective
preparation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv).
The parties therefore request that the Court grant a continuance of the trial date
and the plea cut-off date, and further find that the delay caused by this continuance
should be deemed excludable time under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) because the
ends of justice served by the granting of this continuance outweigh the best
interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIMA S. MOHSIN
Acting United States Attorney
s/ Ryan A. Particka s/Steven E. Scharg (w/ consent)
Ryan A. Particka Steven E. Scharg
Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Defendant Samuel Baker
ryan.particka@usdoj.gov Email: scharg1924@gmail.com
(313) 226-9635
2
Case 2:20-cr-20433-PDB-APP ECF No. 42, PageID.186 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court
Eastern District of Michigan
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
No. 20-20433
v.
Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow
Samuel George Baker,
Defendant,
Order Continuing the
Plea Cut-off, and
Trial and Finding Excludable Delay
The Court has considered the parties’ stipulation and joint motion to continue
the trial and the plea cut-off date and for a finding that the time period from the
November 16, 2021, plea cutoff date to the January 4, 2022, plea cutoff date
qualifies as excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).
For the reasons described in the parties’ submission, and after considering the
factors listed in § 3161(h)(7)(B), the Court finds that the ends of justice served by
granting the parties’ requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public
and the defendant in a speedy trial and that the time from the November 16, 2021,
plea cutoff date to the January 4, 2022, plea cutoff qualifies as excludable delay
under § 3161(h)(7).
Case 2:20-cr-20433-PDB-APP ECF No. 42, PageID.187 Filed 11/17/21 Page 4 of 4
Specifically, the Court finds that:
The parties are presently engaged in plea negotiations and defense counsel
has requested additional time to review discovery with his client and
determine whether the government’s pending Rule 11 plea offer is in the
defendant’s best interest.
As a result, failure to grant a continuance could lead to the dismissal of
charges and thereby make a continuation of the proceeding impossible and
result in a miscarriage of justice and deny counsel for the defendant or the
attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective
preparation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the time from the November 16, 2021,
plea cutoff date to the January 4, 2022, plea cutoff date shall constitute excludable
delay under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7), because the Court finds
that the ends of justice served by the granting of the continuance outweigh the best
interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial in this case will be continued
indefinitely. The parties are ordered to inform the Court promptly when and if the
circumstances that justify the continuance no longer exist.
s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow
United States District Judge
Entered: November 17, 2021
2
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mied.349407.42.0.pdf
- Size
- 131,377 bytes
- SHA-256
- 65cf8fed31e120b67cbe3e97262efca714b744303cdb74c8cde3361090f164d1
- Original
- archive.org