United States v. Karnezis et al., ord No. 3:23-cr-00067, ECF 74: Defendants' unopposed joint motion to continue trial

Summary

An unopposed joint motion to continue trial in United States v. Eric Karnezis, et al., No. 3:23-CR-00067-IM, Document 74, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, filed January 10, 2025. Defendant Nikkia Bennett moves, joined by Defendants Eric Karnezis and Lynisha Wells, to continue the February 11, 2025 trial date for approximately one hundred and eighty days to a date on or after August 11, 2025. The motion states that the Government's initial discovery production includes approximately 250 gigabytes of information and over 520,000 pages, and that the Government does not oppose a continuance. It bears the signature text /s/ Justin T. Rusk, attorney for Defendant Nikkia Bennett.

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 3:23-cr-00067-IM          Document 74         Filed 01/10/25      Page 1 of 5




JANET HOFFMAN OSB: 781145
Email: janet@jhoffman.com
JUSTIN T RUSK, OSB No. 175946
E-mail: justinr@jhoffman.com
Janet Hoffman & Associates LLC
1000 SW Broadway, Suite 1500
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-1125

Attorneys for Defendant Nikkia Bennett


                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

                                     PORTLAND DIVISION


 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         CASE NO. 3:23-CR-00067-IM

        Plaintiff,                                 DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED JOINT
                                                   MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
 v.

 ERIC KARNEZIS, et al,

        Defendants.


                                             MOTION

       Defendant Nikkia Bennett, by and through her attorneys, who is joined by Defendant Eric

Karnezis and Defendant Lynisha Wells through their respective attorneys, hereby moves this court

for a continuance of the currently scheduled February 11, 2025 trial date for approximately one

hundred and eighty days to a date on or after August 11, 2025, at the Court’s convenience, and

continuing the pretrial motion deadline to an appropriate date prior to the reschedule date of trial.

       This motion is made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161, the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In accordance



MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL – 1
        Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM         Document 74         Filed 01/10/25      Page 2 of 5




with LR 7-1, counsel for Ms. Bennett has conferred with counsel for the other joining defendants

and the Government who does not oppose a continuance of this matter.

I.      Procedural Background

        On March 7, 2023, non-joining Defendant Fredrico Williams was charged by Indictment

with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of wire fraud. On August 21,

2024, over a year later, moving defendants were joined to this action as defendants through the

filing of a Superseding Indictment. See ECF No. 32. At the time of moving defendants’ initial

appearances, trial in this matter related to Mr. Williams was set for February 11, 2025, and initial

trial settings for all defendants were scheduled at that time. Moving defendants are presently out

of custody on pretrial release. No prior requests for a continuance as to moving defendants have

been filed in this matter.

        Prior to filing the present motion, counsel for Ms. Bennett conferred with the Government

who does not oppose the motion and also indicates that a further discovery production is

forthcoming. Counsel for Ms. Bennett also conferred with counsel for the joining defendants who

indicated their non-opposition and desire to join in the motion for a continuance.



II.     Discussion

        Whether to grant a continuance is an issue committed to the court’s discretion. United

States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358-62 (9th Cir. 1985). In evaluating a motion for a continuance,

a district court examines several relevant factors including: (1) whether the continuance would

inconvenience the witnesses, the court, counsel, or the parties; (2) whether other continuances have

previously been granted; (3) whether legitimate reasons exist for the continuance; (4) whether the

delay is attributable to the defendant; and (5) whether a denial of the motion would prejudice the

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL – 2
        Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM          Document 74          Filed 01/10/25       Page 3 of 5




defendant. See e.g., United States v. Fowlie, 24 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth and

applying the five-factor test for evaluating a motion to continue trial). In analyzing the relevant

factors, the court should consider the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Ungar v.

Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964).

       Here, as addressed below, those factors warrant exercising the court’s discretion and

granting moving defendants’ request for a continuance and continuing the trial currently scheduled

for February 11, 2025, to at least August 11, 2025. First, despite the initial Indictment filed against

Mr. Williams in March 2023, this action is still in its infancy for moving defendants who were

only added by Superseding Indictment in August 2024, almost a year and a half later. Second,

moving defendants have not made any prior requests for a continuance in this matter.

       Third, discovery in this matter is still ongoing. In November, the Government made its

initial discovery production which includes approximately 250 gigabytes of information and well

over 265,000 individual entries of discovery consisting of over 520,000 pages of individual

discovery according to the Government’s provided discovery index. The discovery includes

forensic imaging and extraction of computer and cell phone information, hard drive extractions,

witness interviews, FBI and other law enforcement agency reports, third-party search warrant

returns, banking information, and a myriad of other data types. A continuance of the February trial

date is necessary for defense counsel to properly review, catalogue, and analyze discovery which

will then necessitate more time for investigation of various issues and defenses. Further, the review

of this information may result in the need for research and briefing of pretrial motions and potential

communication and discussion with the Government. Moreover, the Government has indicated

that a second discovery production is in the works and is expected to be produced sometime in the




MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL – 3
        Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM          Document 74       Filed 01/10/25      Page 4 of 5




future. Finally, defense counsel needs adequate time to prepare for trial after reviewing all the

discovery.

        Fourth, there is no indication that a continuance in this matter would prejudice any

witnesses, the court, or the Government. And a continuance provides clarity to defendants who

reside out of state precluding the need for moving defendants to make changing travel plans related

to a continued trial date.

        Finally, moving defendants would be prejudiced by the denial of the motion as there is no

sufficient time for defense counsel to review the over 520,000 pages of discovery, investigate

appropriate defenses, identify any pretrial motions or challenges, and prepare for trial before the

currently scheduled trial fate. A continuance is therefore necessary to allow defendants to prepare

a constitutionally adequate defense.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL – 4
        Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM          Document 74         Filed 01/10/25    Page 5 of 5




III.   CONCLUSION

       For the reasons set forth above, moving defendants respectfully request the court grant the

present motion and continue the trial current set for February 11, 2025, for one hundred and eighty

days to at least August 11, 2025. Moving defendants likewise request the court amend the

scheduling order and pretrial deadline to reflect the new trial date.

       Respectfully submitted this 10th day of January 2025.


                                                      /s/ Justin T. Rusk________________
                                                      Justin T Rusk, OSB No. 175946
                                                      Email: justinr@jhoffman.com
                                                      Attorney for Defendant Nikkia Bennett

Joined by:

                                                      /s/ Michael Levine
                                                      Michael Levine, OSB No. 931421
                                                      Email: michael@levinemchenry.com
                                                      Attorney for Defendant Lynisha Wells



                                                      /s/ Guadalupe Valencia
                                                      Guadalupe Valencia, Pro Hac Vice
                                                      Email: gvalencialaw@yahoo.com
                                                      Attorney for Eric Karnezis

                                                      Amy Potter, OSB No. 231794
                                                      Email: amy@angelicalfo.com
                                                      Local Counsel for Eric Karnezis




MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL – 5


File and source

File

74-defendants-unopposed-joint-motion-to-continue-trial.pdf

Size

168,433 bytes

SHA-256

19c391c7dc76ce4995b0ca5290ddf87e423055a32348355502ed46820a3270d8

Our copy

74-defendants-unopposed-joint-motion-to-continue-trial.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com