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
)
BRITNEY ANN OZMENT, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Britney Ann Ozment’s Unopposed Motion to
Continue Jury Trial and Extend Pre-Trial Motion Deadlines [Doc. No. 42]. Defendant
seeks a continuance of her trial from the December, 2025 to the February, 2026 trial docket
and to continue the existing pre-trial motion deadlines. Defendant has submitted a Waiver
of Right to Speedy Trial [Doc. No. 42-1], acknowledging her 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 Defendant’s 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 Defendant
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 Defendant’s
request would deprive her of a reasonable amount of time needed for further effective
investigation, motion practice, and trial preparation, taking into account the exercise of due
Case 5:25-cr-00400-D Document 45 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 2

2
diligence by counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Also, under the circumstances,
denying the Motion would likely deprive Defendant 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 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 period of delay caused by the
granting of Defendant’s Motion is excludable for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion [Doc. No.
42] is GRANTED. This case is stricken from the December 2, 2025 trial docket and reset
on the Court’s February 10, 2026 trial docket. Further, this case is stricken from the
November 21, 2025 docket call, to be reset at a later date, if necessary.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file all pre-trial motions on or
before January 12, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20 th day of November, 2025.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cr-00400-D Document 45 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 2