United States of America v. Pouncy et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	Case No. 23-20262
Plaintiff, 	F. Kay Behm
v. 	U.S. District Judge
D-1 OMAR RASHAD POUNCY,
Defendant,
______________________________/
CORRECTED ORDER
GRANTING ADJOURNMENT (ECF No. 421)
Defendant Omar Pouncy has filed numerous pretrial motions in
this matter (by the court’s count, well over 120 motions in total, and
approximately 29 motions pending as of writing), each one requiring the
court to spend its time sorting through the issues presented and
determining whether he is entitled to any of the relief he seeks. He now
has filed a motion to adjourn the current pretrial dates. (ECF 421).
The motion is GRANTED and IT IS ORDERED that the
criminal trial schedule in ECF No. 404 is ADJOURNED; the parties
are not required to meet the dates set out therein. The court will
instead hold a hearing on outstanding motions on January 8, 2026 at
1:00 P.M. Each of the numerous pending pretrial motions exclude this
Case 4:23-cr-20262-FKB-CI ECF No. 423, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 3

2
period of delay under the Speedy Trial Act. 	See 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(1)(D).
Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, it is FURTHER
ORDERED that, pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A), the time from the date of this order, November 12, 2025
to the new trial date shall be counted as excludable delay, because the
ends of justice are served by excluding the time and because serving
those ends outweighs the best interests of the public and the defendant
in a speedy trial. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B), the court finds
that the unusually high volume of pretrial motions justifies an ends-of-
justice continuance. 	See, e.g., United States v. Flemming, 12-cr-20052,
ECF No. 406, PageID.3024 (adjourning trial date where pro se
defendant filed seventeen pretrial motions), aff’d 658 F. App’x 777, 786
(6th Cir. 2016). Defendant will also need time to prepare for trial in
light of the court’s rulings on his motions. 	See ECF No. 421. Given the
number and complexity of the issues raised in the pretrial motions, the
time needed for full briefing, and the time needed for the court to take
those briefings under advisement in order to rule on the issues
presented (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(H)), the court finds that Defendant
cannot be prepared for trial on December 16 and thus would not have
Case 4:23-cr-20262-FKB-CI ECF No. 423, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 3

3
the reasonable time necessary to prepare for trial. 	See 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(B)(iv); United States v. Craig, No. 2:18-CR-105, 2019 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 203840, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 25, 2019).
The court will issue an updated case management order at
another date.
SO ORDERED.
Date: November 17, 2025 s/F. Kay Behm
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
Case 4:23-cr-20262-FKB-CI ECF No. 423, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 3