USA v. Venegas

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-26-110-D
)
DANIEL RIOS VENEGAS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Jury Trial and to
Extend Pretrial Motion Deadlines [Doc. No. 18]. For the following reasons, the motion is
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged in a one-count indictment [Doc. No. 1] with re-entry of
removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Defendant appeared for arraignment
before United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin on March 19, 2026, and entered a
plea of not guilty. The case was set on the Court’s May 12, 2026 jury trial docket [Doc.
No. 6].
On April 30, 2026, Defendant filed the present motion to continue [Doc. No. 18].
Counsel for Defendant represents that she received discovery on March 26, 2026, and since
that date has been in trial preparation and/or trial in various other cases. Counsel further
represents that additional time is needed to meet with Defendant, review the discovery
materials with him, and explore a possible resolution of this matter.
Case 5:26-cr-00110-D Document 20 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Defendant 	requests 	a 	continuance 	to 	the 	June 	2026 	jury 	trial 	docket. 	The
government is not opposed to the requested continuance. In the present motion, defense
counsel notifies the Court that a waiver of speedy trial will be filed within 5 days.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the motion and the ends of justice, the Court finds that the
need for a continuance outweighs the best interests of Defendant and the public in a speedy
trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A); see also United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262,
1273 (10th Cir. 2009). For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s motion, the Court finds that
a refusal to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny Defendant’s counsel
the time reasonably necessary for effective preparation, despite due diligence, and would
likely result in a miscarriage of justice.
In making these findings, the Court has fully considered the statutory factors set
forth in § 3161(h)(7)(B) and has concluded that the requested continuance is fully
consistent with congressional policies and binding precedent. See Bloate v. United States,
559 U.S. 196, 214 (2010); Toombs, 574 F.3d at 1269. The Court has also considered the
length of delay, the reason for delay, any prejudice, and other relevant circumstances.
Toombs, 574 F.3d at 1273. Further, no circumstance is present that would prohibit a
continuance pursuant to § 3161(h)(7)(C). Therefore, the period of delay caused by the
granting of this motion is excludable for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act.
Case 5:26-cr-00110-D Document 20 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Accordingly, Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Jury Trial and to Extend
Pretrial Motion Deadlines [Doc. No. 18] is GRANTED.1 This case is stricken from the
May 12, 2026 jury trial docket and is rescheduled on the June 9, 2026 jury trial docket. The
parties shall file all pre-trial motions on or before May 12, 2026. This case is stricken from
the Docket Call on May 1, 2026, to be reset, if necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 st day of May, 2026.
1 Defendant shall file his waiver of speedy trial within 5 days of this Order.
TIMO~~ E	~l~~tUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cr-00110-D Document 20 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 3