United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Saxena, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for
David White, Counsel for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
Michael J. Davis United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the Government’s Motion
to Exclude Time under Speedy Trial Act [Docket No. 522] and
on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Speedy
Trial Violation [Docket No. 523]. The Court heard oral
argument on May 21, 2019. In accordance with the
Court’s oral order during the May 21, 2019 hearing, the
Court issues the following Memorandum of Law & Order.
Speedy Trial Act Standard
In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the
trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment
with the commission of an offense shall commence within
seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the
information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has
appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such
charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.
18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
Speedy Trial Calculations in this Case
14, 2015, a multi-count Indictment was filed against
Defendant Adan Margritos Flores-Lagonas and co-Defendants
Armando Reyes-Ramirez, Eloy Flores, Leticia Reyes-Ramirez,
and Jonathan Perez-Juarez. [Docket No. 1] After various
pretrial motions and rulings, a trial date was set.
February 1, 2016, a sealed Superseding Indictment was filed
against Flores-Lagonas, Reyes-Ramirez, Perez-Juarez, and
three new co-Defendants: Epifanio Salgedo Flores, Nicole
Angela Davis, and Felix Nacedo Flores. [Docket No. 177] The
Superseding Indictment alleged that the three new
co-Defendants were co-conspirators of Flores-Lagonas with
regard to Count 1, Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine.
A redacted version of the Superseding Indictment was filed on
February 2 [Docket No. 182] and the unsealed Superseding
Indictment was filed on February 12 [Docket No. 203].
a newly indicted or arraigned defendant is joined with a
defendant whose speedy trial clock has already started
running, the latter defendant’s speedy trial clock will
be reset so that it reflects the speedy trial clock of the
newly added codefendant.” United States v.
Lightfoot, 483 F.3d 876, 886 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted). Thus, Defendant’s speedy trial clock was
reset to 0 days on February 1, 2016, when new co-Defendants
were joined in the Superseding Indictment. For the reasons
fully explained in the Court’s May 13, 2016, Order
[Docket No. 272], due to Epifanio Salgedo Flores’s
clock commencing on March 29, 2016, the date of his first
appearance in the District of Minnesota, and various pretrial
motions filed, the time period from February 1, 2016 through
May 13, 2016 was excluded from Defendant’s speedy trial
Epifanio Salgedo Flores filed various pretrial motions on
April 19, 2016. [Docket Nos. 242-49] The Government did not
file a response, so the motion was not fully briefed for
submission to the Court, and the motions were withdrawn on
June 6, 2016, when Epifanio Salgado Flores pled guilty.
[Docket No. 289] Therefore, the time from April 19, 2016
through June 6, 2016 was excludable under the speedy trial
act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D);