Opinion
2:23-cr-00192-LK
07-10-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THANJAVUR MANAVALAN, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND AMEND CASE SCHEDULE
Lauren King, United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Stipulated Motion to Continue Trial and Amend Case Schedule. Dkt. No. 23. The parties seek to continue the trial date from September 23, 2024 to March 10, 2025, and to continue the pretrial motions deadline from July 26, 2024 to January 10, 2025. Id. at 1; Dkt. No. 23-1 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 20 at 2 (setting current trial date and pretrial motions deadline).
Mr. Manavalan is charged with 14 counts of Aiding and Assisting in the Preparation and Presentation of a False and Fraudulent Return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). Dkt. No. 1 at 1-3.
The parties request a new trial date of March 10, 2025 because Assistant U.S. Attorney David Martin “anticipates being on parental leave from approximately September 3 until October 28, 2024, and thus cannot represent the government at the trial as scheduled.” Dkt. No. 23 at 2. They therefore argue that a continuance is warranted in light of counsel's unavailability and “the government's interest in the continuity of counsel in this complex case[.]” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv)). In addition, given defense counsel's “other obligations and the complexity of this case, . . . the defense believes that the earliest they could be adequately prepared for trial, following AUSA Martin's parental leave, is in February or March of 2025.” Id. at 3. Mr. Manavalan has waived his speedy trial rights through March 24, 2025. Dkt. No. 22 at 1.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B), the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and Mr. Manavalan in any speedier trial. The Court further finds that failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny the Government continuity of counsel, and that a shorter continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the stipulated motion, Dkt. No. 23, and ORDERS that the trial date shall be continued from September 23, 2024 to March 10, 2025, and the pretrial motions deadline shall be continued from July 26, 2024 to January 10, 2025. It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B), the period of delay from the date of this Order to the new trial date is EXCLUDED when computing the time within which Defendant's trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act.
The Court further finds that the Proposed Scheduling Order the parties submitted, Dkt. No. 23-1, is reasonable, and the Court adopts it. The Court will enter a separate scheduling order for ease of reference.