USA v. Garibay

1 / 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
§
v. § CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2:25-CR-591
§
JOSHUA JAMES GARIBAY §
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
On January 15, 2026, Defendant moved for a continuance of the trial setting on the
following grounds: Defense counsel has a scheduling conflict and is unavailable. (D.E. 17).
Under the Speedy Trial Act, a district court may grant a continuance and exclude the
resulting delay from the time in which a trial must commence if it makes on-the-record findings
that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the public’s and defendant’s
interests in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).
Having considered Defendant’s motion, the Court finds the following § 3161(h)(7)(B)
factors apply to the case at hand:
(1) That the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to
make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of
justice.
(2) That the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the
nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it
is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the
trial itself within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act.
(3) That, in a case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the filing of the
indictment is caused because the arrest occurs at a time such that it is unreasonable
to expect return and filing of the indictment within the period specified in section
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cr-00591 Document 18 Filed 01/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2 / 2
3161(b), or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base its determination
are unusual or complex.
X (4) That the failure to grant such a continuance in this case which, taken as a whole, is
not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (2) above, would deny the
defendant or the government continuity of counsel, or 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.
(5) Other relevant factors:
Accordingly, the Court finds that the ends of justice are served by granting a continuance
in this case and outweigh the best interests of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial. The
Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and CONTINUES the Final Pretrial Conference (FPTC)
until March 26, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. and Jury Selection/Trial until April 6, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. All
motions shall be filed in accordance with the dates set forth in the original Pretrial Order. Parties
are ordered to file motions in limine, exhibit and witness lists, and proposed jury instructions no
later than 3 days before FPTC. Any plea bargain or plea agreement entered into by the parties in
this cause must be made known in writing on or before 3 days before FPTC. No plea bargain or
plea agreement entered into after this date will be honored by this Court without good cause shown
for the delay. Any motion to continue the Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Selection and Trial
must be filed no later than 3 days before FPTC. Failure to abide by the deadlines may result in
motions being stricken or denied.
ORDERED on January 16, 2026.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cr-00591 Document 18 Filed 01/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2