United States District Court For The District of Maryland United States of America v. Chad Arrington, Defendant. CRIMINAL NO. 19-264-RDB

Case 1:19-cr-00264-RDB Document 18 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CRIMINAL NO. 19-264-RDB
v.
CHAD ARRINGTON,
Defendant.
JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TIME

PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
Comes now the United States of America, by and through its counsel, Robert K. Hur, the
United States Attorney for the District of Maryland, and Derek E. Hines and Mary W. Setzer,
Assistant United States Attorneys for said district, jointly with defendant Chad Arrington and his
counsel, Andrew R. Szekely, Esq. and Kirstin M. Hopkins, Esq., and respectfully submit this Joint
Motion to Exclude Time Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, and move to exclude time from the
speedy trial calculations pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. ' 3161(h). In support thereof, the parties
state:
1. On May 29, 2019, a sealed indictment was returned charging the Defendant with
conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and other offenses.
2. On June 4, 2019, Defendant Arrington was arrested and initially appeared in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on the indictment.
3. Since the Defendant’s initial appearance, the parties have been discussing the
potential for resolution of this matter short of trial. Discovery has also been produced and the
parties are reviewing discovery. Discovery is voluminous and includes hundreds of pages of
subpoena responses, court filings, and other documents.
4. Under the Speedy Trial Act, specifically Title 18, United States Code, Section
1
3161(c)(1), a criminal defendant must be brought to trial within seventy days of the later of either
the filing of an indictment or the first appearance before a judicial officer of the court in which the
charge is pending.
5. Periods of delay which would extend the time within which trial must commence
include delay resulting from pretrial motions, including this motion, and pretrial suppression
motions. 18 U.S.C. ' 3161(h)(1)(D). A period granted by this Court in which to file pre-trial
motions is excludable delay under the general provision of Section 3161(h)(1)(D). Although that
section enumerates specific excludable proceedings, the list is not exhaustive. See 18 U.S.C. '
3161(h)(1) (excluding from computation “[a]ny period of delay resulting from other proceedings
concerning the defendant, including but not limited to . . .”) (emphasis added). It has been
interpreted to include a number of different proceedings and events concerning a defendant,
including “delays resulting from plea negotiations.” United States v. Ford, 288 Fed. Appx. 54,
58 (4th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing 18 U.S.C. ' 3161(h)(1)(F)).
6. A continuance beyond the seventy-day speedy trial date is also permissible where
granted by the Court on the basis of a finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action
outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. '
3161(h)(7)(A). Factors which the Court must consider in making this finding are listed in Section
3161(h)(7)(B) and include the following:
(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.
....
(iv) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case
which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or 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
2
defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise
of due diligence.
18 U.S.C. ' 3161(h)(7)(B). This analysis considers a number of factors, including “whether the
defendant needs reasonable time to obtain counsel” and “whether counsel needs additional time
for effective preparation of the case.” See United States v. Mallory, 461 Fed. Appx. 352, 358
(4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).
7. The parties respectfully submit that the above factors are applicable to this
prosecution and justify a continuation of the trial date beyond the speedy trial date. As an initial
matter, the parties have discussed the potential for the resolution of this matter through a plea
agreement, although they anticipate requiring additional time to do that. And despite the exercise
of due diligence by the parties, both the Government and the Defendants need additional time to
review case materials and voluminous discovery, interview witnesses, and prepare for trial. And,
the defendant needs additional time to prepare pretrial motions, should the case not be resolved.
Accordingly, the interests of justice served by the requested exclusion of time outweigh the
interests of the public and the Defendants in a speedy trial.
Wherefore, the parties respectfully request that this Court enter an Order excluding time
under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7)(A), for
the period from June 4, 2019, through October 31, 2019.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert K. Hur
United States Attorney
By: _____/s/_________________________
Derek E. Hines
Mary W. Setzer
Assistant United States Attorneys
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 25, 2019, a copy of the foregoing document
was delivered to the CM-ECF system of the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland for electronic delivery to all counsel of record on ECF.
________/s/________________________
Derek E. Hines
Assistant United States Attorney

United States District Court For The District of Maryland United States of America v. Chad Arrington, Defendant. CRIMINAL NO. 19-264-RDB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States District Court For The District of Maryland United States of America v. Chad Arrington, Defendant. CRIMINAL NO. 19-264-RDB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States District Court For The District of Maryland United States of America v. Chad Arrington, Defendant. CRIMINAL NO. 19-264-RDB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:19-cr-00264-RDB Document 18 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TIME

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on the indictment.

subpoena responses, court filings, and other documents.

interpreted to include a number of different proceedings and events concerning a defendant,

58 (4th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing 18 U.S.C. ' 3161(h)(1)(F)).

3161(h)(7)(B) and include the following:

(i) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in the

defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time

(4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).

interests of the public and the Defendants in a speedy trial.

the period from June 4, 2019, through October 31, 2019.

Maryland for electronic delivery to all counsel of record on ECF.

You might also like