USA v. Ross et al TV2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	No. 3:23-CR-128-TAV-JEM
)
JAMES T. MARKEY, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
All pretrial motions in this case have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) for disposition or recommendation as appropriate. The parties came before the
undersigned on April 7, 2026, for a telephonic status and pretrial conference in this case and a
status conference in case number 3:24-CR-81 (“the misdemeanor case”). Assistant United States
Attorney Suzanne H. Sullivan appeared for the Government. Attorney Wade V. Davies represented
Defendant James Markey, who was excused from attending the hearing.
Trial of this case is set for April 21, 2026 [Doc. 204].1 Codefendant Alexander Ross has
entered a change of plea; and the District Judge held the first phase of Defendant Ross’s sentencing
hearing on January 12, 2026 [Doc. 205, Minutes]. Defendant Markey entered a guilty plea in his
misdemeanor case on September 4, 2025 [No. 3:24-CR-81, Doc. 5, Minutes], and the undersigned
scheduled his sentencing hearing in the misdemeanor case for April 7, 2026 [No. 3:24-CR-81,
Doc. 37, Minutes]. Defendant Markey’s plea agreement in the misdemeanor case provides that the
Government will move to dismiss his sole charge in this case at the time of sentencing in his
misdemeanor case [No. 3:24-CR-81, Doc. 2]. Accordingly, the undersigned previously severed
Defendant Markey for a separate trial from Codefendant Ross and granted Defendant Markey’s
1 	All citations are to the docket in this case unless otherwise stated.
Case 3:23-cr-00128-TAV-JEM Document 209 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
motion for the trial of this case to occur after his sentencing hearing in his misdemeanor case
[Doc. 90 pp. 13–15]. The Court previously excluded all time between Defendant’s entry of a guilty
plea in the misdemeanor case and his trial date in this case to avoid a miscarriage of justice by
“compromis[ing] the parties’ compliance with the terms of the plea agreement in the misdemeanor
case” and because the delay was attributable to other proceedings concerning Defendant, i.e., the
proceedings in the misdemeanor case [Doc. 138 p. 2 (citation omitted); see also Doc. 90 p. 14].
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(b) & (h)(7)(A)–(B)(i).
At the status conference, Mr. Davies moved to continue Defendant’s April 21, 2026 trial
date to permit cooperation prior to his sentencing hearing in the misdemeanor case. AUSA Sullivan
stated that following phase one of Defendant Ross’s sentencing hearing on January 12, 2026, the
parties anticipated that phase two would be set for mid-March, but the second phase has yet to be
set due to the District Judge presiding over a lengthy, intervening criminal trial. The parties agreed
with resetting the sentencing hearing in the misdemeanor case to June 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. and
to a new trial date of June 30, 2026, in this case to allow time for Defendant Ross’s phase two
sentencing hearing to occur.
Based upon the information from the parties and because the Government does not oppose
the continuance, the Court finds the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the
interests of Defendant Markey and the public in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In
making this determination, the Court has considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B).
Specifically, the Court continues to find that the failure to grant a continuance would result in a
miscarriage of justice because it would compromise the parties’ compliance with the terms of the
plea agreement in the misdemeanor case. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i). The Court also finds that the
time from the status conference on April 7, 2026, and Defendant Markey’s June 17 sentencing
hearing in the misdemeanor case is excludable in this case as “delay resulting from other
Case 3:23-cr-00128-TAV-JEM Document 209 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
proceedings concerning the defendant.” Id. § 3161(h)(1)(B). Courts interpret what constitutes a
“proceeding” under § 3161(h)(1) broadly. Sylvester v. United States, 868 F.3d 503, 511
(6th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Robinson, 887 F.2d 651, 656 (6th Cir. 1989)); see also
United States v. Smith, 510 F. App’x 390, 394 (6th Cir. 2013) (noting that under the Speedy Trial
Act, “[c]ourts are given discretion to accommodate delays for case-specific needs” (citing Zedner
v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 499 (2006))). Moreover, excludable delay under subsection
(h)(1)(B) includes time awaiting sentencing on other charges. United States v. Robinson,
887 F.2d 651, 656–57 (6th Cir. 1989) (analyzing excludable delay in bringing indictment).
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed oral motion to continue the trial.
The trial of this case is reset to June 30, 2026. A new trial schedule is included below. Because the
Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the interests of
Defendant and the public in a speedy trial, all time between the status conference on April 7, 2026,
and the new trial date of June 30, 2026, is fully excludable under the Speedy Trial Act. See id.
§ 3161(h)(1)(B) & (h)(7)(A)–(B).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) 	Defendant’s oral motion to continue the trial is GRANTED;
(2) 	the trial of this matter is reset to commence on June 30,
2026, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Thomas A. Varlan,
United States District Judge;
(3) 	all time between the status conference on April 7, 2026, and
the new trial date of June 30, 2026, is fully excludable time
under the Speedy Trial Act for the reasons set forth herein;
(4) 	the deadline for filing a plea agreement in the record and
providing reciprocal discovery is May 29, 2026;
(5) 	the parties are to appear before the undersigned for a final
pretrial conference on June 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., which
is also the date and time for Defendant’s sentencing hearing
in case number 3:24-CR-81;
Case 3:23-cr-00128-TAV-JEM Document 209 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
(6) 	the deadline for filing motions in limine is June 15, 2026,
and responses to motions in limine are due on or before
June 23, 2026; and
(7) 	requests 	for 	special 	jury 	instructions 	with 	appropriate
citations to authority pursuant to Local Rule 7.4 shall be filed
on or before June 19, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
_________________________
Jill. E. McCook
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cr-00128-TAV-JEM Document 209 Filed 04/07/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>