`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`FORT WORTH DIVISION
`
`
`§
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`NATHAN REIS and
`
`
`STEPHANIE HOCKRIDGE,
`a/k/a §
`STEPHANIE REIS,
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`§
`
`Case No. 4:24 CR-00287-O
`
`
`
`(01)
`(02)
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court are Defendants’ Unopposed Joint Motion to Continue (ECF No. 48) and
`
`the Government’s Response (ECF No. 50). After reviewing the motion, the Court finds that the
`
`Motion should be GRANTED in part.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h), a court can grant an “ends of justice” continuance at the
`
`request of a defendant or defendant’s attorney if the court does so on the basis of the finding “that
`
`the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the
`
`defendant in a speedy trial.” Id. One of the factors a court may consider in granting an “ends of
`
`justice” continuance is “[w]hether the failure to grant such a continuance . . . would deny counsel
`
`for the defendant . . . the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account
`
`the exercise of due diligence.” 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
`
`
`
`Based on the reasons in the motion, the Court finds (1) that the ends of justice served by
`
`the granting of a trial continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendants in a
`
`speedy trial; (2) that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny counsel the
`
`reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 51 Filed 01/30/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID 230
`
`
`diligence; and (3) that taking into account the exercise of due diligence by counsel, a continuance
`
`of the duration granted by this order is necessary for effective preparation by defense counsel.
`
`
`
`Defendants request a continuance of 120 days. That length of request is not necessary.
`
`Defendants have known about the investigation since before the indictment was returned. The
`
`current trial setting remains more than a month away. While it is true that the Government has
`
`made available a large number of documents, it has also helped to streamline their review. Finally,
`
`this case has been pending since November. Given this, trial will begin at 9:00 am on April 22,
`
`2025.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED on this 30th day of January, 2025.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________________
`Reed O’Connor
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`