USA v. Fontaine

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	No. 3:24-CR-103-KAC-JEM
) 	No. 3:21-CR-150-KAC-JEM
)
ANTONIO FONTAINE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant Antonio Fontaine’s Unopposed Motion to
Continue Trial and All Other Deadlines [United States v. Fontaine, No. 3:24-CR-103, Doc. 39]
and his Motion to Continue the Hearing on the Petition to Revoke Supervised Release [United
States v. Fontaine, No. 3:21-CR-150, Doc. 82], both filed on November 14, 2025. All pretrial
motions in United States v. Fontaine, No. 3:24-CR-103, have been referred to the undersigned
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for disposition or recommendation as appropriate. Judge Crytzer
referred the Motion to Continue the Hearing on the Petition to Revoke Supervised Release in
United States v. Fontaine, No. 3:21-CR-150, to the undersigned [United States v. Fontaine,
No. 3:21-CR-150, Doc. 83].
Defendant asks the Court to continue the plea deadline and trial date in United States v.
Fontaine, No. 3:24-CR-103, and the corresponding revocation hearing in United States v.
Fontaine, No. 3:21-CR-150. In support of his motion, Defendant states that the that his counsel
requires more time to review the discovery and have further discussions with Defendant [United
States v. Fontaine, No. 3:24-CR-103, Doc. 39 ¶ 1]. Resolution of this case impacts Defendant’s
state trial [Id. ¶ 2]. Defendant submits that complications finalizing a plea agreement in this Court
Case 3:24-cr-00103-KAC-JEM Document 40 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
arose due to Defendant’s pending state charges, which required Defendant to request a courtesy
second copy of all his discovery on a hard drive to review [Id.]. As a result, Defendant needs more
time to review the discovery while he is held in Laurel County, Kentucky [Id.]. Defendant reports
that he and his counsel have been in good communication with the Government in this case, as
well as with the defense attorney in Defendant’s state cases [Id. ¶ 3]. Defendant’s counsel and the
Government have been in negotiations and are close to a potential resolution but cannot resolve
the case without some certainty about the state court cases [Id. ¶ 4]. Defendant contends that
allowing more time for further discussions would potentially allow the Government to avoid
preparing for trial and allow the Government and the Court to allocate their resources efficiently
[Id.]. If a resolution cannot be reached in this matter, Defendant and the Government would require
more time to prepare for trial [Id. ¶ 5]. Defendant’s motion reflects that the Government does not
oppose the continuance [Id. ¶ 6]. With respect to the Motion to Continue the Hearing on the
Petition to Revoke Supervised Release, Defendant submits that the charges in United States v.
Fontaine, No. 3:24-CR-103, are the basis for the supervised release revocation proceeding [United
States v. Fontaine, No. 3:21-CR-150, Doc. 82 p. 1]. Defendant’s counsel confirmed to the Court
via email that he had spoken with Defendant about his right to a speedy trial and that Defendant
waived those rights for the purposes of the continuances.
Based on the information in Defendant’s motions and because the Government does not
oppose the 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). In consideration of these factors, the Court concludes that failing to grant a
continuance would both result in a miscarriage of justice and deny counsel for Defendant the
Case 3:24-cr-00103-KAC-JEM Document 40 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due
diligence. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv). Defendant needs more time to review discovery, receive
and consider a plea agreement, and if that does not resolve the case, otherwise prepare for trial.
The Court finds that all of this cannot occur before the December 16, 2025 trial date.
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant Antonio Fontaine’s Unopposed Motion to
Continue Trial and All Other Deadlines [United States v. Fontaine, No. 3:24-CR-103, Doc. 39]
and Motion to Continue the Hearing on the Petition to Revoke Supervised Release [United States
v. Fontaine, No. 3:21-CR-150, Doc. 82]. The date for the trial and the revocation hearing is reset
to April 7, 2026. A new, comprehensive trial schedule is included below. Because the Court finds
that the ends of justice are served by granting a continuance outweigh the interests of Defendant
and the public in a speedy trial, all of the time between the filing of the motion on November 14,
2025, 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) 	Defendant Antonio Fontaine’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial
and All Other Deadlines [United States v. Fontaine, No. 3:24-CR-
103, Doc. 39] and Motion to Continue the Hearing on the Petition
to Revoke Supervised Release [United States v. Fontaine, No. 3:21-
CR-150, Doc. 82] are GRANTED;
(2) 	the trial date in United States v. Fontaine, No. 3:24-CR-103, and
corresponding revocation hearing in United States v. Fontaine,
No. 3:21-CR-150, are reset to commence on April 7, 2026, at
9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Katherine A. Crytzer, United States
District Judge;
(3) 	all time between the filing of the motions on November 14, 2025,
and the new trial date of April 7, 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 March 6, 2026;
Case 3:24-cr-00103-KAC-JEM Document 40 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
(5) 	the deadline for filing motions in limine is March 23, 2026.
Responses to motions in limine are due on or before March 31,
2026;
(6) 	the parties are to appear before the undersigned for a final pretrial
conference on March 19, 2026, at 1:30 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
March 27, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
____________ ________________
Jill E. McCook
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cr-00103-KAC-JEM Document 40 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>