USA v. Fletcher

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	No. 3:25-CR-41-TAV-JEM
)
DEANDRE Q. FLETCHER, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
All pretrial motions in this case have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) for disposition or recommendation as appropriate. This case is before the Court on the
Motion by Defendant Deandre Q. Fletcher to Continue Trial and All Relevant Deadlines
[Doc. 46], filed on August 20, 2026.
Defendant asks the Court to continue the September 15, 2026 trial date, the plea deadline,
and all other relevant deadlines [Id. at 1]. As grounds, Defendant states the Court substituted
Attorney Gerald L. Gulley, Jr., as his counsel of record on August 19, 2026 [Id. ¶ 1; see Doc. 45].
Defendant contends that new defense counsel needs time to review discovery and discuss the case,
including potential defenses, with Defendant, who is housed out-of-state in Laurel County,
Kentucky [Id. ¶¶ 1–2]. Defendant is aware of his speedy trial rights and does not oppose the
requested continuance [Id.¶ 4]. The Government does not oppose the requested continuance of the
trial date and relevant deadlines [Id. ¶ 3].
Based upon the parties’ positions and because the Government does not oppose a trial
continuance, the Court finds the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the
interests of Defendant and the public in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In making
this determination, the Court has considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B).
Case 3:25-cr-00041-TAV-JEM Document 47 Filed 08/28/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
Specifically, the Court concludes that not granting a continuance would both result in a miscarriage
of justice and deny counsel for Defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation,
accounting for the exercise of due diligence. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv). Counsel for Defendant
needs time to review discovery, investigate the case, meet with Defendant, engage in plea
discussions, and ready the case for trial. The Court finds that all of this cannot occur before the
September 15, 2026 trial date.
The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion by Defendant Deandre Q. Fletcher to Continue
Trial and All Relevant Deadlines [Doc. 46]. The trial of this case is reset to December 8, 2026,
and a new schedule is included below. Because the Court has found that the ends of justice served
by granting a continuance outweigh the interests of Defendant and the public in a speedy trial, all
time between the filing of the motion on August 20, 2026, and the new trial date is fully excludable
time under the Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D), (h)(7)(A)–(B).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) 	the Motion by Defendant Deandre Q. Fletcher to Continue Trial and
All Relevant Deadlines [Doc. 46] is GRANTED;
(2) 	the trial of this matter is reset to commence on December 8, 2026,
at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Thomas A. Varlan, United States
District Judge;
(3) 	all time between the filing of the motion on August 20, 2026, and
the new trial date of December 8, 2026, is fully excludable time
under the Speedy Trial Act for the reasons set forth herein;
(4) 	the deadline for filing a plea agreement in the record and providing
reciprocal discovery is November 6, 2026;
(5) 	the deadline for filing motions in limine is November 23, 2026,1
and responses to motions in limine or due on or before December
1, 2026;
1 	The final line of Defendant’s motion asks to continue the trial date, plea deadline, pretrial
conference, “and any other relevant deadlines, including . . . any Motion deadlines” [Doc. 46 ¶ 4].
Case 3:25-cr-00041-TAV-JEM Document 47 Filed 08/28/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
(6) 	the parties are to appear before the undersigned for a final pretrial
conference on November 17, 2026, at 1:00 p.m.; and
(7) 	requests for special jury instructions with appropriate citations to
authority pursuant to Local Rule 7.4 shall be filed on or before
November 30, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
___________________________
Jill E. McCook
United States Magistrate Judge
Here, the only relevant motion deadline is the deadline for filing motions in limine because the
deadline for filing pretrial motions expired on June 25, 2025 [Doc. 7, Minutes]. The undersigned
previously denied a blanket request to reopen the motion deadline by prior counsel [Doc. 42
pp. 3–4]. To the extent the reference to the motion deadline applies to the deadline for filing pretrial
motions, the Government expressly objected to reopening the pretrial motion deadline at the
August 19 motion hearing on the substitution of counsel. Moreover, Defendant does not show
good 	cause 	for 	reopening 	the 	pretrial 	motion 	deadline. 	See 	United 	States 	v. 	Gulley,
780 F. App’x 275, 283 (6th Cir. 2019) (observing that a change of counsel without more is not
good cause to allow an untimely motion (citing United States v. Reynolds, 534 F. App’x 347, 357
(6th Cir. 2013))). If defense counsel finds an additional pretrial motion is necessary, he must file
the motion as an attachment to a motion for leave to file the motion out of time, and he must
demonstrate good cause for the late filing, addressing both the reason the motion was not filed
timely and the prejudice to all parties from the late filing.
Case 3:25-cr-00041-TAV-JEM Document 47 Filed 08/28/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>