USA v. Herrera et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAIRO ALEJANDRO CASTORENA
HERRERA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CR-25-432-D
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial and to Extend
Motion Deadlines [Doc. No. 54]. Defendant seeks a continuance of his trial from the
January 2026, to the February 2026, trial docket. Defendant submitted a Waiver of Speedy
Trial [Doc. No. 55], acknowledging his 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
Defendant 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 Defendant’s request would deprive him 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-00432-D Document 56 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 2

motion would likely deprive Defendant 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 January 13,
2026, to February 10, 2026, shall be excluded for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue
Trial and to Extend Motion Deadlines [Doc. No. 54] is GRANTED. This case is stricken
from the January 13, 2026, trial docket and reset on the Court’s February 10, 2026, trial
docket. The parties shall file all pretrial motions on or before January 13, 2026, and all
other pretrial filings shall be submitted in accordance with the Court’s Local Criminal
Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2025.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cr-00432-D Document 56 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 2