USA v. DAVIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
DENZELL DAVIS,
Defendant.
CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
3:25-cr-00004-TES-CHW-1
ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
Before the Court is the United States of America’s Consent Motion For
Continuance In The Interest Of Justice. [Doc. 26]. Defense counsel consents to this
motion. [Id. at p. 1]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that trial should be
continued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h).
On February 11, 2025, the Grand Jury returned a one-count Indictment [Doc. 1]
charging Defendant Denzell Omar Davis with one count of Possession of a Firearm by a
Convicted Felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). On July 25, 2025,
Defendant Davis was arraigned, pled not guilty, and was ordered detained pending
trial. [Doc. 15]; [Doc. 20].
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:
In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant
Case 3:25-cr-00004-TES-CHW Document 27 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 3

2
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 the United States of America requests a continuance because counsel
has a trial in another matter that conflicts with the pretrial conference in this case. [Doc.
26, ¶ 4]. 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 the United States of America’s request outweigh the interests of Defendant
and the public in a speedy trial. See id. Specifically, failure to grant this continuance
would deny the government “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 the United States of America’s Consent Motion for
Continuance In The Interest of Justice. [Doc. 26]. The Court CONTINUES the Pretrial
Conference until January 12, 2026, and CONTINUES the trial of this matter until
February 23, 2026. 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)
Case 3:25-cr-00004-TES-CHW Document 27 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 3

3
and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
SO ORDERED, this 14th day of November, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 3:25-cr-00004-TES-CHW Document 27 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 3