USA v. Fletcher

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	No. 3:25-CR-41-TAV-JEM
)
DEANDRE Q. FLETCHER, 	)
)
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. This case is before the Court on
Defendant Deandre Fletcher’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Deadlines [Doc. 38],
which he filed on April 29, 2026, and on the Government’s Motion for Leave to File Response
Out of Time [Doc. 40], which it filed on May 12, 2026.
Defendant asks the Court to continue the June 30, 2026 trial date as well as all other
deadlines in the Court’s last scheduling order and to reopen the deadline for pretrial motions
[Id. at 1]. As grounds, Defendant states the Court substituted Attorney Russell T. Greene as his
counsel of record on April 1, 2026 [Id.; see Doc. 36]. Defendant contends that new defense counsel
needs time to complete review of discovery and investigate the case [Id.]. In this regard, Defendant
requests a new motion deadline, stating that “[c]ounsel has identified issues that are dispositive
and will need motion[s] fil[ed] and potential hearings on such motions” [Id.]. Defendant
understands his speedy trial rights for purposes of this motion to continue [Id.].
The Court ordered the Government to respond to the motion to continue including to
Defendant’s request to reopen the deadline [Doc. 39]. The Government’s deadline for responding
was May 4, 2026 [See id.]. On May 12, the Government moved for leave to file its belated
Case 3:25-cr-00041-TAV-JEM Document 42 Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
response, stating that its response was scheduled to be filed on May 4, while counsel was on leave,
but due to “an internal miscommunication, the response was not filed by the deadline” [Doc. 40
p. 1]. The Government requests a short extension of its response deadline to file the attached
response [Id.]. Defendant filed no response to the Government’s motion for leave and thus, the
Court finds Defendant does not object to the Government’s belated filing. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2
(“Failure to respond to a motion may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the relief sought.”).
The Government’s motion for leave [Doc. 40] to file a late response is GRANTED.
In its response, the Government does not object to continuing the trial date, the plea
deadline, and other unexpired deadlines [Doc. 40-1 pp. 1–2]. It does, however, object to reopening
the pretrial motion deadline, arguing Defendant fails to show good cause for additional pretrial
motions [Id.]. It notes the undersigned previously denied prior defense counsel’s motion for leave
to file an untimely motion to suppress evidence [Id.; see Doc. 32 p. 6]. It argues that Defendant,
through new counsel, fails to provide a legitimate explanation for the potential late filing and that
a change in counsel alone is not sufficient [Doc. 40-1 p. 2]. The Government also maintains that
permitting additional pretrial motions would, as the Court previously found, prejudice the Court
and the Government [Id. at 3; see Doc. 32 p. 6].
Based upon the parties’ positions and because the Government does not oppose a trial
continuance, the Court finds the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the
interests of Defendant 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 not granting a continuance would both result in a miscarriage
of justice and deny counsel for Defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation,
accounting for the exercise of due diligence. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv). Counsel for Defendant
Case 3:25-cr-00041-TAV-JEM Document 42 Filed 05/27/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
needs time to review discovery, investigate the case, meet with Defendant, engage in plea
discussions, and ready the case for trial. The Court finds that all of this cannot occur before the
June 30, 2026 trial date.
The Court therefore GRANTS in part Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial and All
Related Deadlines [Doc. 38]. The trial of this case is reset to September 15, 2026, and new
schedule is included below. Because the Court has found 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 filing of the motion on April 29, 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).
Defendant’s request to reopen the pretrial motion deadline, however, is DENIED. The
Court has discretion to reopen a motion deadline and to permit an untimely motion upon a showing
of “good cause.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3). “Good cause is a ‘flexible standard’ requiring an
explanation for both the delay and the potential prejudice.” United States v. Trujillo-Molina,
678 F. App’x 335, 337 (6th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). “At a minimum, a party must ‘articulate
some legitimate explanation for the failure to timely file.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Walden,
625 F.3d 961, 965 (6th Cir. 2010)).
Defendant Fletcher fails to make this showing [See Doc. 32 pp. 4–6]. Defendant’s deadline
for filing pretrial motions expired on June 25, 2025 [Doc. 7, Minutes]. Defendant does not identify
the dispositive motion that he seeks to file, nor does he explain why this motion was not previously
filed. The undersigned previously found that prior defense counsel “chose to forego filing pretrial
motions to pursue plea negotiations” and that such “is a strategic choice that does not amount to
good cause” [Doc. 32 p. 4–5].
Case 3:25-cr-00041-TAV-JEM Document 42 Filed 05/27/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
The situation remains unchanged despite the substitution of counsel. As the Government
observes [Doc. 40-1 p. 2], our appellate court has determined that “‘[a] change in counsel alone is
not sufficient to constitute good cause’” for an untimely motion. United States v. Gulley,
780 F. App’x 275, 283 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Reynolds, 534 F. App’x 347, 357
(6th Cir. 2013)). To hold otherwise would incentivize defendants “to cycle through new attorneys,
simply to raise new arguments and motions” in disregard for the “principles of Rule 12 and the
Speedy Trial rights of the public.” United States v. Webb, No. 2:23-CR-42, 2024 WL 2134864,
at *2 (W.D. Penn. May 13, 2024) (citing United States v. Santana-Dones, 920 F.3d 70, 81
(1st Cir. 2019)). Additionally, Defendant fails to address prejudice to either party, the Court, or
the public from a lengthy continuance to accommodate pretrial motions, motion hearings, a report
and recommendation on dispositive issues, and a ruling from the District Judge.
Accordingly, Defendant’s request to reopen the pretrial motion deadline is DENIED. If
defense counsel finds additional pretrial motions are necessary, he must file the motion(s) as an
attachment to a motion for leave to file the motion(s) out of time, and he must demonstrate good
cause for the late filing, addressing both the reason for not filing the motion earlier and the
prejudice to all parties from the late filing. Counsel is encouraged to file any motions for leave as
soon as possible.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) 	Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Deadlines
[Doc. 38] is GRANTED in part in that the Court continues the trial
date, plea deadline, and other related dates and deadlines;
(2) 	the trial of this matter is reset to commence on September 15, 2026,
at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Thomas A. Varlan, United States
District Judge;
Case 3:25-cr-00041-TAV-JEM Document 42 Filed 05/27/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

5
(3) 	all time between the filing of the motion on April 29, 2026, and the
new trial date of September 15, 2026, is fully excludable time under
the Speedy Trial Act for the reasons set forth herein;
(4) 	the Government’s Motion for Leave to File Response Out of Time
[Doc. 40] is GRANTED;
(5) 	Defendant’s request to reopen the deadline for filing pretrial
motions is DENIED;
(6) 	if defense counsel finds additional pretrial motions are necessary, he
must file the motion(s) as an attachment to a motion for leave to file
the motion(s) out of time, and he must demonstrate good cause for
the late filing, addressing both the reason for not filing the motion
earlier and the prejudice to all parties from the late filing;
(7) 	the deadline for filing a plea agreement in the record and providing
reciprocal discovery is August 14, 2026;
(8) 	the deadline for filing motions in limine is August 31, 2026, and
responses to motions in limine or due on or before September 8,
2026;
(9) 	the parties are to appear before the undersigned for a final pretrial
conference on September 1, 2026, at 1:00 p.m.; and
(10) requests for special jury instructions with appropriate citations to
authority pursuant to Local Rule 7.4 shall be filed on or before
September 4, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
___________________________
Jill E. McCook
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cr-00041-TAV-JEM Document 42 Filed 05/27/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>