USA v. Salas Gutierrez

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 26-CR-00971 KG
JESUS SALAS GUTIERREZ,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL AND RESET CASE DEADLINES
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue. Doc. 24.
There being good cause shown by the Defendant and there being no objection by the
government, the Court finds the motion is well-taken and should be granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the jury trial in this matter currently scheduled for May
4, 2026, is continued and will be rescheduled at a later date.
Additionally, the Court finds that a continuance is necessary to continue plea negotiations
with the government. If a resolution is not reached, then additional time will be necessary to
prepare pretrial motions, motions in limine and prepare for trial.
The Court finds that the ends of justice will be served by granting this extension of time
in which to file motions and a continuance of the trial. See United States v. Hernandez-Mejia,
406 Fed. App’x. 330, 338 (10th Cir. 2011) (“The Speedy Trial Act was intended not only to
protect the interests of defendants, but was also ‘designed with the public interest firmly in
mind.’”) (quoting United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262, 1273 (10th Cir. 2009)). Additional
time will allow the Defendant to further conduct an investigation into the charges in this case, to
Case 1:26-cr-00971-KG Document 25 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 2

2
prepare and file pretrial motions, and to adequately prepare for trial. Additionally, a continuance
will provide the parties time to discuss a possible negotiated resolution of this matter. Such a
negotiated resolution would conserve judicial and prosecutorial resources and could also
materially benefit the Defendant by providing him access to a more favorable resolution of this
matter. Furthermore, a continuance will permit the Defendant to complete investigation of his
case, file motions, and prepare for trial. This motion is not predicated upon the congestion of the
Court’s docket. See United States v. Hernandez-Mejia, 406 Fed. App’x. 330, 338 (10th Cir. 2011)
(“The Speedy Trial Act was intended not only to protect the interests of defendants, but was also
‘designed with the public interest in mind.’”) (quoting United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262,
1273 (10th Cir. 2009)).
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
Submitted by:
/s/ Santiago David Hernandez
Santiago David Hernandez
Attorney for Defendant Jesus Salas Gutierrez
Approved by:
Via e-mail on
Chris Shultz
Attorney for the United States
Case 1:26-cr-00971-KG Document 25 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 2