`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`Case No. 23-cr-156 (SRN/TNL)
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`Desean James Solomon (1),
`Jamaal Rashed Rice (2),
`Leontawan Lentez Holt (3),
`Michael Allen Burrell (4), and
`Andrew Calvin Noble (5),
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`This matter is set for a motions hearing on December 14, 2023. ECF No. 173 at 4.
`
`Defendant Jamaal Rashed Rice, through his counsel, has filed a Motion for a
`
`Continuance, ECF No. 194, and a Motion to Exclude Time Under the Speedy Trial Act,
`
`ECF No. 195.1 Defense counsel states that Rice recently tested positive for COVID-19
`
`and is currently being quarantined at the facility where he is detained. ECF No. 194 at 1.
`
`Defense “counsel has been unable to confer with [Rice] or determine the severity of his
`
`symptoms.” ECF No. 194 at 1. Defense counsel does not object to Rice’s motions being
`
`heard separately from the motions of his co-defendants, but requests that the motions
`
`hearing be continued as to Rice under the circumstances. The Government has no
`
`objection to the requested continuance. It is not clear how long Rice will need to be
`
`quarantined.
`
`
`1 Defendant counsel notes that “[a]n executed Statement of Facts will be filed as soon as [Rice] is out of quarantine
`and can safely meet with counsel.” ECF No. 195 at 1.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`CASE 0:23-cr-00156-SRN-TNL Doc. 196 Filed 12/11/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`This case was previously designed
`
`as complex under 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). See generally ECF No. 57. More than 50 pretrial motions have been
`
`filed. Because the motions hearing must take place sometime after Rice’s quarantine has
`
`ended consistent with the safety protocols of the facility in which he is detained and the
`
`interests of justice are served by continuing to keep the Defendants aligned given the
`
`complexity of the case and the overlapping nature of the facts and legal issues, IT IS
`
`HEREBY ORDERED that Rice’s Motion for a Continuance, ECF No. 194, and Motion
`
`to Exclude Time Under the Speedy Trial Act, ECF No. 195, are GRANTED. IT IS
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, as to all Defendants, the criminal motions hearing
`
`scheduled for December 14 is CONTINUED to January 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.,
`
`before the undersigned in Courtroom 9W, Diana E. Murphy U.S. Courthouse, 300
`
`South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
`
`The Court finds that the ends of justice served by ordering this continuance
`
`outweigh the best interests of the public and Defendants’ right to a speedy trial under 18
`
`U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In addition, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), the Court finds
`
`that a miscarriage of justice would result if time were not excluded under the
`
`circumstances. Accordingly, the time period between the date of this Order and
`
`January 5, 2024, shall be excluded from Speedy Trial Act computations in this case.
`
`See United States v. Mallett, 751 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Exclusions of time
`
`attributable to one defendant apply to all codefendants.” (quotation omitted)); United
`
`States v. Arrellano-Garcia, 471 F.3d 897, 900 (8th Cir. 2006) (same); see also 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 3161(h)(7)(6) (excluding “[a] reasonable period of delay when the defendant is joined
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CASE 0:23-cr-00156-SRN-TNL Doc. 196 Filed 12/11/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`for trial with a codefendant as to whom the time for trial has not run and no motion for
`
`severance has been granted”); Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 323 n.2 (1986)
`
`(“[a]ll defendants who are joined for trial generally fall within the speedy trial
`
`computation of the latest codefendant”); United States v. Cordova, 157 F.3d 587, 598-99
`
`(8th Cir. 1998).
`
`
`
`Dated: December 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Tony N. Leung
`Tony N. Leung
`United States Magistrate Judge
`District of Minnesota
`
`
`
`
`
`United States v. Solomon et al.
`Case No. 23-cr-156 (SRN/TNL)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site