USA v. Hernandez et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-25-400-D
)
SALVADOR HERNANDEZ 	)
HERNANDEZ, and 	)
BRADLEY WAYNE CONDITT 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Salvador Hernandez Hernandez and Bradley Wayne
Conditt’s Joint Unopposed Motion to Continue Their Jury Trials and Extend Pre-Trial
Motion Deadlines [Doc. No. 44]. Defendants seek a continuance of their trials from the
December, 2025 to the February, 2026 trial docket and to continue their existing pre-trial
motion deadlines. Defendants have each submitted a Waiver of Right to Speedy Trial [Doc.
Nos. 43 & 47], acknowledging their rights under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-
74, and waiving those rights for the period of delay. The government does not object to
Defendants’ request.
Upon consideration of the Motion, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by
granting a two-month continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendants
in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A); see also United States v. Toombs, 574
F.3d 1262, 1272-73 (10th Cir. 2009). Specifically, accepting the representations of counsel,
the Court finds for the reasons fully set forth in the Motion that denying Defendants’
Case 5:25-cr-00400-D Document 48 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 2

2
request would deprive them of a reasonable amount of time needed for further effective
investigation, motion practice, and trial preparation, taking into account the exercise of due
diligence 	by 	their 	counsel. 	See 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 	Also, 	under 	the
circumstances, 	denying 	the 	Motion 	would 	likely 	deprive 	Defendants 	of 	effective
representation of counsel and result in a miscarriage of justice. 	See 	18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
In making these findings, the Court has considered the statutory factors set forth in
§ 3161(h)(7)(B) and has concluded that the requested continuances are fully consistent with
congressional policies and precedent. See Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196, 214
(2010); Toombs, 574 F.3d at 1269. Further, no circumstance is present that would prohibit
the continuances pursuant to § 3161(h)(7)(C). Therefore, the period of delay caused by the
granting of Defendants’ Motion is excludable for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Unopposed Motion [Doc. No.
44] is GRANTED. This case is stricken from the December 2, 2025 trial docket and reset
on the Court’s February 10, 2026 trial docket.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file all pre-trial motions on or
before January 12, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21 st day of November, 2025.
Case 5:25-cr-00400-D Document 48 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 2