USA v. Burns

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-26-18-D
)
DARTAGNON EVERETTDEAN 	)
BURNS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Jury Trial [Doc.
No. 22]. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged in a three-count Indictment [Doc. No. 18] with attempted
coercion and enticement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) (Count 	1); distribution of
child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) (Count 2); and possession of
and access with intent to view material containing child pornography, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (Count 3). Defendant appeared for arraignment before United
States Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield on January 21, 2026, and entered a plea of
not guilty. The case was set on the Court’s March 10, 2026 jury trial docket [Doc. No. 20].
On February 11, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion to continue the jury trial
to the May 12, 2026 trial docket [Doc. No. 22]. Defense counsel represents that he needs
additional time to consult with Defendant, review discovery, investigate relevant facts of
Case 5:26-cr-00018-D Document 23 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
the case, and explore a possible resolution of this matter. The government is not opposed
to a continuance. Defendant has filed a Waiver of Speedy Trial [Doc. No. 22-1].
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the motion and the ends of justice, the Court finds that the
need for a continuance outweighs the best interests of Defendant and the public in a speedy
trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A); see also United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262,
1273 (10th Cir. 2009). For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s motion, the Court finds that
a refusal to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny Defendant’s counsel
the time reasonably necessary for effective preparation, despite due diligence, and would
likely result in a miscarriage of justice.
In making these findings, the Court has fully considered the statutory factors set
forth in § 3161(h)(7)(B) and has concluded that the requested continuance is fully
consistent with congressional policies and binding precedent. See Bloate v. United States,
559 U.S. 196, 214 (2010); Toombs, 574 F.3d at 1269. The Court has also considered the
length of delay, the reason for delay, any prejudice, and other relevant circumstances.
Toombs, 574 F.3d at 1273. Further, no circumstance is present that would prohibit a
continuance pursuant to § 3161(h)(7)(C). Therefore, the period of delay caused by the
granting of this motion is excludable for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Jury Trial [Doc. No. 22]
is GRANTED. This case is stricken from the March 10, 2026 jury trial docket and is
rescheduled on the May 12, 2026 jury trial docket. The parties shall file all pre-trial motions
on or before April 14, 2026.
Case 5:26-cr-00018-D Document 23 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17 th day of February, 2026.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cr-00018-D Document 23 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 3