USA v. VILLAMIZAR, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
KEYDERMAN JOSE BLANCO
VILLAMIZAR, et al.,
Defendants.
CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
3:24-cr-00035-TES-CHW-8
ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
Before the Court is Defendant Ricardo Lopez’s Unopposed Motion to Continue
Pretrial Conference [Doc. 179]. The government does not oppose this continuance. [Id.
at p. 2]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that trial should be continued
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h).
On May 14, 2025, the Grand Jury returned a three-count First Superseding
Indictment [Doc. 60] charging Defendant with Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Defendant was arrested on May 21, 2025, pled not guilty at
his arraignment on June 18, 2025, and remains detained pending trial. [Doc. 74]; [Doc.
77].
While the grant of a continuance is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge,
United States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506, 1516 (11th Cir. 1986), the Court is limited by the
requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The Act provides in part:
Case 3:24-cr-00035-TES-CHW Document 184 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 3

2
In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant
charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense
shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making
public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has
appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is
pending, whichever date last occurs.
18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). However, the Act excludes from the 70-day period any
continuance based on “findings 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. at §
3161(h)(7)(A).
Counsel for Defendant Lopez requests a continuance because counsel has a trial
in another matter that conflicts with the pretrial conference in this case. [Doc. 179, pp. 1–
2]. The Court finds that granting a continuance serves the ends of justice. See 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by granting
Defendant’s request outweigh the interests of Defendant and the public in a speedy
trial. See id. Specifically, failure to grant this continuance would deny Defendant “the
reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of
due diligence.” Id. at § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). For this reason, the Court GRANTS Defendant
Davis’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Pretrial Conference [Doc. 24]. The Court
CONTINUES the Pretrial Conference until December 3, 2025, and CONTINUES the
trial of this matter until January 20, 2026, as to all defendants. The delay occasioned by
this continuance shall be deemed excludable pursuant to the provisions of the Speedy
Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Case 3:24-cr-00035-TES-CHW Document 184 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED, this 29th day of October, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 3:24-cr-00035-TES-CHW Document 184 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 3