USA v. Jensen et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 5:25-cr-04750-MIS
OBED LOPEZ,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Obed Lopez’s (“Defendant”) Motion to
Continue (“Motion”), ECF No. 189, filed on May 1, 2026. Upon review of Defendant’s Motion,
the record, and the relevant law, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion.
Defendant requests the Court continue his trial. Id. at 1. Defendant gives no alternate date
or date range. See generally id. The pretrial conference is scheduled for four weeks from now, with
jury selection scheduled to begin a week later. See Scheduling Order at 2, ECF No. 86. Defendant
requests a continuance so his counsel has “more time to investigate” the case. Mot. at 1, ECF No.
189. Defendant’s motion is not opposed by the Government. Id.
Reviewing a Motion to Continue requires the Court to examine “four factors: (1) the
diligence of the party seeking the continuance; (2) the likelihood the continuance, if granted, would
have accomplished the stated purpose; (3) the inconvenience to the opposing party, witnesses, and
the court; and (4) the need for the continuance and any harm resulting from its denial. United States
v. Glaub, 910 F.3d 1334, 1345 (10th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). “The final factor is the most
important.” United States v. Orr, 692 F.3d 1079, 1100 (10th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). The
factors favor denial, and the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion accordingly.
Case 5:25-cr-04750-MIS Document 198 Filed 05/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
As to the first factor, Defendant’s Counsel entered her appearance on March 2, 2026, a
week after Defendant’s arrest and two weeks after his indictment. See Mot. at 1, ECF No. 189.
This is the first motion filed by Defendant Lopez. The Court has had no reason to question her
diligence, but also no reason to consider her particularly diligent. The first factor neither favors
nor disfavors a continuance.
As to the second factor, whether a continuance would accomplish the stated purpose, the
Court finds it would not. Defendant bases his request on his counsel’s need to “investigate his
base,” but Defendant’s Counsel neither outlined what work she has done to investigate her client’s
case, nor what work remains. See id. Discovery concluded nearly two months ago, see Scheduling
Order at 1, ECF No. 86, and Defendant’s Counsel has been attached to the case since shortly after
her client’s indictment and arrest, see Mot. at 1, ECF No. 189. Defendant’s Counsel has not
explained why more time is necessary. The second factor does not favor a continuance.
As to the third factor, a delay would inconvenience the Court, witnesses, and, based on his
opposition to Defendant Jensen’s continuance request, ECF No. 178 at 2, at least one codefendant.
The Government is not opposed to this request; therefore, the Court assumes it is not
inconvenienced. Mot. at 1, ECF No. 189. Defendant does not inform the Court whether he reached
out to any of his codefendants regarding this request. See id. The Court, however, scheduled this
trial fourteen weeks ago and has little space to move it backward in the calendar due to other
pending trials. As the deadline to declare expert witnesses has passed for both parties, Scheduling
Order at 1, ECF No. 86, a continuance would inconvenience witnesses counting on the schedule
as issued. Finally, Defendant Ortega opposed Defendant Jensen’s request to continue, ECF No.
178 at 2, and filed a separate motion to sever requesting a bench trial, ECF No. 174, indicating he
Case 5:25-cr-04750-MIS Document 198 Filed 05/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
is prepared to move forward and is inconvenienced by further delay. The third factor does not
favor a continuance.
Finally, as to the most important factor, the Court sees no harm in denying the instant
Motion. Defendant has been aware of the trial deadline for nine weeks, and trial is still five weeks
away, with the pretrial conference still four weeks away. See Notice of Hr’g, ECF No. 190.
Defendant has had all material information for nearly two months, see Scheduling Order at 1, ECF
No. 86, and could have requested this continuance at any time. Defendant’s delay in making this
request, and the lack of specificity in it, indicates to the Court that little to no harm will come from
delay and Defendant’s Counsel had sufficient time to prepare. The fourth factor does not favor a
continuance.
As three of the four factors favor denial and the fourth is neutral, the Defendant’s Motion
for Continuance is denied.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Lopez’s Motion to Continue,
ECF No. 189, is DENIED.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cr-04750-MIS Document 198 Filed 05/05/26 Page 3 of 3