USA v. Westfield

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CR-26-15-RAW
)
CALVIN RAY WESTFIELD, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
This matter came on for hearing on June 24, 2026 on defense
counsel’s motion for substitution of counsel (#50). At the hearing’s
conclusion, based on several factors (including a possible conflict of
interest) the court granted the motion, and determined that a
continuance of the trial date until August 4, 2026 was appropriate.
Continuance of the jury trial may implicate the Speedy Trial Act,
18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 et seq. The Act requires a defendant to be brought
to trial within seventy days of his initial appearance in the charging
district. The instant request for a continuance falls under
§3161(h)(7)(A) of the Speedy Trial Act. This section permits a federal
district court to exclude any period of delay resulting from a
continuance if “the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his
findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh
6:26-cr-00015-RAW Document 58 Filed in ED/OK on 06/25/26 Page 1 of 4

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” 18
U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). A court must orally or in writing set forth its
reasons for granting an ends of justice continuance and make findings
that a continuance is in the best interest of the defendant and the
public. The statute permits a court to consider whether “the failure to
grant such a continuance... would deny counsel for the defendant... the
reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account
the exercise of due diligence.” Id. at § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Tenth
Circuit has been clear that an ends of justice continuance should not be
granted “cavalierly” and it was intended to be a “rarely used tool.”
United States v. Williams, 511 F.3d 1044, 1048-49 (10th Cir. 2007). In
United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2009), the Tenth
Circuit limited the circumstances in which an ends of justice continuance
can be granted and emphasized that this should be a rarely used
procedural tool. A district court must also give significant weight to the
public’s interest in a speedy trial, and the public’s interest is generally
served by strict adherence to the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act.
Id. at 1273.
The Court finds that an ends of justice continuance is appropriate
under the circumstances involving a change in defense counsel. The
2
6:26-cr-00015-RAW Document 58 Filed in ED/OK on 06/25/26 Page 2 of 4

request for additional time to prepare is reasonable particularly in this
instance. The cause warrants the extension in the interest of justice to
ensure Defendant may effectively prepare for a trial.
Further, the Court finds justification to exclude the period of delay
for an ends of justice continuance. In addition to the interests of the
Defendant, the Court has considered the public’s interest in the speedy
resolution of criminal cases and finds that a limited ends of justice
continuance will not subvert the public’s interest in the prompt
prosecution of criminal matters.
The court further finds that the ends of justice served by granting
this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the
defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). The
period of delay resulting from this continuance is considered
excludable time as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
It is the order of the court that the second motion of defense
counsel to withdraw and request for substitute counsel (#50) is
hereby granted. The Federal Public Defender is directed to appoint
substitute counsel from the CJA panel. The case is hereby continued
to the August 4, 2026 trial docket. The time from July 7, 2026 to
August 4, 2026, inclusive, is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3
6:26-cr-00015-RAW Document 58 Filed in ED/OK on 06/25/26 Page 3 of 4

3161(h)(7).
ORDERED THIS 25th day of June, 2026.
_____________________________
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
6:26-cr-00015-RAW Document 58 Filed in ED/OK on 06/25/26 Page 4 of 4