USA v. Hudson et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES ALVIN HUDSON and KAYLA
LABRAE MELTON,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CR-25-72-D
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Joint Unopposed Motion to Continue [Doc. No.
97]. Defendants seek a continuance of their trial from the April 2026, trial docket, to the
May 2026, trial docket. Defendants have each submitted a waiver of speedy trial [Doc.
Nos. 98, 99], acknowledging their rights under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-
74, and waiving those rights for the period of delay.
Upon consideration of the motion and the case record, the Court finds that the ends
of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and
Defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A); see also United States v.
Toombs, 	574 	F.3d 	1262, 	1272-73 	(10th 	Cir. 	2009). 	Specifically, 	accepting 	the
representations of counsel, the Court finds for the reasons fully set forth in the motion that
denying Defendants’ request would deprive them of a reasonable amount of time needed
for effective investigation, motion practice, trial preparation, and possible negotiation of a
resolution of the charges in the Indictment, taking into account the exercise of due diligence
by counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Also, under the circumstances, denying the
Case 5:25-cr-00072-D Document 100 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 2

2
motion would likely deprive Defendants of effective representation of counsel and result
in a miscarriage of justice. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
In making these findings, the Court has 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 precedent. See Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196, 214
(2010); Toombs, 574 F.3d at 1269. Further, no circumstance is present that would prohibit
a continuance pursuant to § 3161(h)(7)(C). Therefore, the time period from April 14, 2026,
to May 12, 2026, shall be excluded for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Joint Unopposed Motion to
Continue [Doc. No. 97] is GRANTED. This case is stricken from the April 14, 2026, trial
docket and reset on the Court’s May 12, 2026, trial docket. The parties shall file all pretrial
motions on or before April 20, 2026, and all other pretrial filings shall be submitted in
accordance with the Court’s Local Criminal Rules. This case is stricken from the Docket
Call on April 8, 2026, to be reset, if necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2026.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cr-00072-D Document 100 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 2