USA v. Lee, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	No. 3:25-CR-18-KAC-JEM
)
JIMMY D. LEE, 	)
TYJUAN A. MCCALEBB, 	)
JOHN R. DORSEY, 	)
RALPHEAL ANDERSON, 	)
JANICE MCCALEBB-NIXON, and 	)
CORTEZ R. JAMAR, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
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. This case is before the Court on
Defendant Cortez Jamar’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial, Extend Plea Deadline, and Reset
all Pretrial Deadlines [Doc. 152], which he filed on January 2, 2026, and Defendant Jimmy Lee’s
Motion to Join Co-Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial, Extend Plea Deadline, and
Reset All Pretrial Deadlines [Doc. 153], which he filed on January 5, 2026.
Defendant Jamar asks the Court to reset all pretrial deadlines [Doc. 152 p. 1]. In support of
his motion, Defendant Jamar asserts he received a new counsel appointment on August 29, 2025,
and his new counsel needs additional time to review and analyze discovery recently provided by
the Government [Id. ¶¶ 2–3]. Additionally, Defendant Jamar states that, due to professional and
personal commitments, his counsel has had insufficient time to consult with him, consider potential
pretrial motions, and prepare for a February 3, 2026 trial date [Id. ¶ 3]. Defendant also Jamar states
his counsel needs additional time to complete plea negotiations with the Government [Id. ¶ 4].
Case 3:25-cr-00018-KAC-JEM Document 160 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
Defendant Lee joins Defendant Jamar’s motion in requesting the Court continue this case
and all deadlines, including the pretrial motion deadline [Doc. 153 p. 2]. In support, Defendant
Lee states additional time is needed because of technical difficulties his counsel experienced in
accessing discovery [Id. § 2], which resulted in ongoing coordination between his counsel and the
Government to address the issues [Id. § 3]. Defendant Lee also states he needs additional time for
his counsel and the Government to complete plea discussions [Id. § 4].
The Government does not oppose Defendant Jamar’s and Defendant Lee’s motions
[Doc. 152 ¶ 6; Doc. 153 § 6]. Counsel for Defendant Jamar and counsel for Defendant Lee
confirmed that each Defendant is aware of his rights to a speedy trial and waive those rights for
purposes of their motions [Doc. 152 ¶ 8; Doc. 153 § 5]. Codefendants Tyjuan McCalebb, John
Dorsey, Rapheal Anderson, and Janice McCalebb-Nixon also filed notices of no opposition to the
requested continuance and confirmation they are aware of their rights to a speedy trial and waive
those rights for purposes of the continuance motions [Docs. 155, 156, 158, & 159].
Based upon the information in the motions filed by Defendant Jamar and Defendant Lee,
and because the Government and all codefendants do not oppose the continuance, the Court finds
the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the interests of Defendants 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 set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B). Specifically, the Court concludes
that failing to grant a continuance would both result in a miscarriage of justice and deny counsel
for Defendant Jamar and Defendant Lee the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation,
taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv). Specifically,
counsel for Defendant Jamar needs additional time to review discovery, confer with Defendant,
prepare and file potential pretrial motions, complete plea negotiations, and otherwise prepare for
Case 3:25-cr-00018-KAC-JEM Document 160 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
trial in the event there is no resolution. Counsel for Defendant Lee also needs additional time to
access and review discovery, prepare and file potential pretrial motions, complete plea discussions,
and, if no plea agreement, otherwise prepare for trial. The Court finds that this cannot occur before
the February 3, 2026 trial date.
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant Jamar’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial,
Extend Plea Deadline, and Reset All Pretrial Deadlines [Doc. 152] and Defendant Lee’s Motion
to Join Co-Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial, Extend Deadline, and Reset All
Pretrial Deadlines [Doc. 153]. The trial date is reset to July 7, 2026. A new, comprehensive trial
schedule is included below. Because the Court has found that the ends of justice served by granting
a continuance outweigh the interests of Defendants and the public in a speedy trial, all of the time
between the filing of the Defendant Jamar’s motion on January 2, 2026, and the new trial date is
fully excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D), (h)(7)(A)–(B).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) 	Defendant Cortez Jamar’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial,
Extend Plea Deadline, and Reset All Pretrial Deadlines [Doc. 152]
is GRANTED;
(2) 	Defendant Lee’s Motion to Join Co-Defendant’s Unopposed Motion
to Continue Trial, Extend Plea Deadline, and Reset All Pretrial
Deadlines [Doc. 153] is GRANTED;
(3) 	the 	trial 	date 	is 	reset 	to 	commence 	on 	July 	7, 	2026,
at 	9:00 	a.m., 	before 	the 	Honorable 	Katherine 	A. 	Crytzer,
United States District Judge;
(4) 	all time between the filing of the Defendant Jamar’s motion on
January 2, 2026, and the new trial date of July 7, 2026, is fully
excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act for the reasons set forth
herein;
Case 3:25-cr-00018-KAC-JEM Document 160 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
(5) 	for good cause shown, Defendant Lee’s deadline for filing pretrial
motions is reset to February 16, 2026, and responses to pretrial
motions are due on or before March 2, 2026;1
(6) 	the deadline for filing a plea agreement in the record and providing
reciprocal discovery is June 8, 2026;
(7) 	the deadline for filing motions in limine is June 22, 2026, and
responses to motions in limine are due on or before June 30, 2026;
(8) 	the parties are to appear before the undersigned for a final pretrial
conference on June 23, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.; and
(9) 	requests for special jury instructions with appropriate citations to
authority pursuant to Local Rule 7.4 shall be filed on or before
June 26, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
____________________________
Jill E. McCook
United States Magistrate Judge
1 	While Defendant Lee has shown good cause to extend his motion deadline, the
codefendants have not requested an extension of their motions deadline. Because the motion
deadline has expired, it will not be reopened without a request and good cause shown.
Case 3:25-cr-00018-KAC-JEM Document 160 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>