UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BASAVE-GARCIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
ABEL BASAVE-GARCIA,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 3:25-CR-21-TES
ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
Before the Court is Defendant Abel Basave-Garcia’s Unopposed Motion to
Continue Trial in the Interest of Justice. [Doc. 17]. Trial is currently set to begin on
February 23, 2026, and the government does not oppose a continuance. [Id. at 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 November 18, 2025, Defendant was charged in a one-count indictment with
illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). [Doc. 1]. Defendant
appeared on December 3, 2025 for his initial appearance and arraignment at which time
he entered a not guilty plea and was ordered detained pending trial of this matter. [Doc.
10]; [Doc. 11].
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-00021-TES-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/10/25 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 requests a continuance “to allow undersigned counsel
time to review the discovery, which was received on the date of [Defendant’s] motion,
December 9, 2025. . .” and to allow time to “meet with [Defendant] about the discovery,
determine the next steps in the instant case, and begin defense investigations as it
relates to the government’s discovery, if warranted.” [Doc. 17, p. 2].
Considering this, failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny
Defendant “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
Case 3:25-cr-00021-TES-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 3

3
of justice, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial in the
Interest of Justice [Doc. 17]. The Court CONTINUES this case to March 23, 2026. The
pretrial conference will be held on February 11, 2026. 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 10th day of December, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 3:25-cr-00021-TES-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 3