USA v. YOUNG et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
TRACE DAVRIN WORKS,
DEVITO DURAN YOUNG,
ANDREAUS BENARD OLIVER, SR., and
ANDREAUS BENARD OLIVER, JR.
Defendants.
s
CRIMINAL ACTION NOS.
3:25-cr-00002-TES-1, 2, 4, 5
ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
Before the Court is Defendant Trace Davrin Works’ Motion to Continue Pretrial
Conference [Doc. 95]. Trial is currently set to begin on December 15, 2025, and the
government does not oppose a continuance. [Doc. 95, 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 government obtained a Superseding Indictment [Doc. 6]
charging Defendant Works with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). [Doc. 6, pp. 9–11]. On August 7, 2025, Defendant Works was
arraigned and ordered detained pending trial. [Doc. 30]; [Doc. 39].
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
Case 3:25-cr-00002-TES-CHW Document 96 Filed 10/24/25 Page 1 of 3

2
requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The Act provides in part:
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). In granting such a continuance, the Court may consider, among other
factors, whether the failure to grant the continuance “would deny counsel for the
defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for
effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.” Id. at §
3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
In his Motion, Defendant Works requests a continuance because his counsel
began trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
October 14, 2025, in the case of United States v. Jared Wheat, 1:17-CR-229-AT. [Doc. 95, p.
1]. That trial is expected to last until Friday, November 20, 2025. [Id.]. As such, counsel
for Defendant Works has a conflict for the pretrial conference that is currently
scheduled for November 10, 2025, and does not have adequate time to prepare for
Defendant Works’ case.
Considering this, failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny
Case 3:25-cr-00002-TES-CHW Document 96 Filed 10/24/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Defendant Works “the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into
account the exercise of due diligence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). So as to avoid a
miscarriage of justice, the Court GRANTS Defendant Works’ Motion to Continue
Pretrial Conference [Doc. 95]. Additionally, since “the time for trial has not yet run”
with respect to his co-defendants and “no motion for severance has been granted,” see
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6), the Court CONTINUES the Pretrial Conference until December
3, 2025, and the trial of this matter until January 20, 2026, as to Defendants Works,
Devito Duran Young, Andreaus Benard Oliver, Sr., and Andreaus Benard Oliver, Jr. The
ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and
these defendants in a speedy trial and are in accordance with the considerations
required under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) for excusable delay.
SO ORDERED, this 24th day of October, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 3:25-cr-00002-TES-CHW Document 96 Filed 10/24/25 Page 3 of 3