USA v. Bayne

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK ERIC BAYNE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
STAY
Case No. 2:24-cr-240-JNP
Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish
On April 17, 2025, the Government submitted a motion seeking for Defendant Mark Eric
Bayne to submit to a psychiatric evaluation in order to assess his competence to stand trial,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. ECF No. 46. Mr. Bayne and his counsel opposed the motion. ECF
No. 48. On October 8, the court granted the Government’s motion and ordered Mr. Bayne’s
counsel to arrange for the psychiatric evaluation. ECF No. 63.
On November 13, 2025, Mr. Bayne submitted a motion to stay the court’s October 8 Order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(A). ECF No. 71. The Government has not
responded to the motion. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the motion.
DISCUSSION
A stay is “‘an exercise of judicial discretion,’ and ‘[t]he propriety of its issue is dependent
upon the circumstances of the particular case.’” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009). When
reviewing a motion to stay an order pending its appeal, a court considers “(1) whether the stay
applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the
Case 2:24-cr-00240-JNP Document 73 Filed 12/04/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will
substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest
lies.” Id. at 434; see Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Interior, No. 18-8027, 2018 WL 2727031,
at *1 (10th Cir. June 4, 2018) (unpublished) (considering a motion for a stay of an order pending
its appeal).
Considering these factors, the court finds that a stay of its October 8 Order is justified. As
Mr. Bayne has argued, without a stay, his appeal would become moot and his “legally cognizable
interest in the outcome” of the appeal would be destroyed. See United States v. Clark, 334 F. App’x
884, 886 (10th Cir. 2009). In contrast, the court finds that a stay of the order will not substantially
injure the Government or the public interest.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the above reasons, the court GRANTS the motion to stay. The October 8 Order is
stayed pending its appeal before the Tenth Circuit.
The court further finds that the period of delay resulting from the stay is excluded time
under the Speedy Trial Act, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A) and § 3161(h)(1)(C) (stating
“the following periods of delay shall be excluded . . . in computing the time within which the trial
of any such offense must commence: (1) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings
concerning the defendant, including . . . (A) delay resulting from any proceeding, including any
examinations, to determine the mental competency or physical capacity of the defendant; [and]
(C) delay resulting from any interlocutory appeal”).
Signed December 4, 2025,
Case 2:24-cr-00240-JNP Document 73 Filed 12/04/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
BY THE COURT
______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States Chief District Judge
Case 2:24-cr-00240-JNP Document 73 Filed 12/04/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3