USA v. Balderas et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KYELEIGH GUIDRY ROGERS,
MARY ANN ROGERS, and
KORBYN NATHANIEL ALLEN,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CR-25-429-D
ORDER
Before the Court is the Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Continue Jury Trial and
Extend Time Within Which to File Pretrial Motions [Doc. No. 159].1 Defendants request a
continuance of their jury trial from May 12, 2026, to the June 9, 2026, jury trial docket,
and an extension of the deadline to file pretrial motions until May 15, 2026. Defendants
have each submitted a waiver of speedy trial [Doc. Nos. 161, 163, 167], acknowledging
their rights under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-74, and waiving those rights for
the period of delay.
Upon consideration of the motion and the case record, the Court finds that the ends
of justice served by granting a one-month continuance outweigh the best interests of the
public and Defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A); United States v.
Toombs, 	574 	F.3d 	1262, 	1272-73 	(10th 	Cir. 	2009). 	Specifically, 	accepting 	the
1 Three out of the eight Defendants in this case join this motion. Two of the Defendants
have entered a plea of guilty, two of the Defendants have submitted plea paperwork and
are awaiting their change of plea hearings, and the eighth Defendant has not yet been
arraigned.
Case 5:25-cr-00429-D Document 170 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 2

representations of counsel, the Court finds for the reasons fully set forth in the motion that
denying Defendants’ request would deprive them of a reasonable amount of time needed
for effective investigation, motion practice, trial preparation, and possible negotiation of a
resolution of the charges in the Indictment, taking into account the exercise of due diligence
by 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 id. § 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 continuance is 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
a continuance pursuant to § 3161(h)(7)(C). Therefore, the time period from May 12, 2026,
to June 9, 2026, shall be excluded for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to
Continue Jury Trial and Extend Time Within Which to File Pretrial Motions [Doc. No. 159]
is GRANTED. This case is stricken from the May 12, 2026, trial docket and reset on the
Court’s June 9, 2026, trial docket. The parties shall file all pretrial motions on or before
May 12, 2026, and all other pretrial filings shall be submitted in accordance with the
Court’s Local Criminal Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 st day of May, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cr-00429-D Document 170 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 2