USA v. Bill

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:23-CR-714 CMS
)
ALAN BILL, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Alan Bill’s Motion to Advance the Trial Date,
(Doc. 291). Defendant asks the Court to “advance” the current trial date of March
30, 2026, to “late February 2026.” (Doc. 291 at 1). The United States Attorney
opposes the Motion due to the pendency of other motions and because “it already
notified potential witnesses of the current trial date.” (Doc. 291 at 2). Defendant’s
Motion will be DENIED.
On August 29, 2025, the Government moved to continue the September 29,
2025, trial date. (Docs. 258, 261). At a September 3, 2025, attorney-only telephone
conference, Defendant’s counsel, Richard Finneran, joined in the Government’s
request to remove the case from the September 29, 2025, trial docket and repeated
Defendant’s request for the services of a court-appointed interpreter at trial.
Pursuant to Defendant’s requests, the Court has appointed a Slovak translator to
Case: 4:23-cr-00714-CMS-NCC Doc. #: 296 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 1 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
translate the proceedings for Defendant, including the trial proceedings. The Court
previously was informed that the court-appointed translator was unavailable until
after the November 27, 2025, Thanksgiving holiday.
On September 3, 2025, this Court granted the Government’s motion to
continue the trial date of September 29, 2025, and directed both parties to “file a
joint memorandum with the Court of mutually agreed upon proposed trial dates by
September 9, 2025.” (Doc. 263). At the September 3, 2025, telephone conference,
and in the Joint Memorandum of Mutually Agreed Upon Proposed Trial Dates
filed on September 9, 2025, (Doc. 264), defense counsel expressed his opposition
to a trial date after early November 2025. Additionally, Defense counsel, Mr.
Finneran, expressed that he “expect[ed] to be on parental leave from mid-
December 2025 through early March 2026 and therefore could not participate in a
trial scheduled during that time.” (Doc. 264). Defendant nonetheless alternatively
requested the earliest proposed trial setting, (Doc. 268 at 1), or a trial date of
January 12, 2026, (Doc. 276 at 2). After reviewing the parties’ Joint Memorandum,
(Doc. 264), and other pleadings, the Court set the trial for the first date mutually
agreed upon and proposed by the parties: Monday, March 30, 2026. (Doc. 278).
In the instant Motion, filed on November 10, 2026, Defendant notes the
entry of co-counsel on his behalf and no longer requests a November 2025 or
January 12, 2026, trial date. Defendant instead requests a trial date of February 17
Case: 4:23-cr-00714-CMS-NCC Doc. #: 296 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 2 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
or 23, 2026, several weeks earlier than the previously agreed upon and proposed
trial date of March 30, 2026.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Advance the Trial
Date (Doc. 291), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial remains set for Monday, March
30, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7), the
maintenance of this trial date is excluded from computation of the time for a
speedy trial. According to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7):
(A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any
judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his
counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the
judge granted such continuance on the basis of his 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. No such period of
delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance
with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless
the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in
writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the
granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public
and the defendant in a speedy trial.
(B) The factors, among others, which a judge shall consider in
determining whether to grant a continuance under subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph in any case are as follows:
….
(ii) Whether 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
Case: 4:23-cr-00714-CMS-NCC Doc. #: 296 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 3 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the
trial itself within the time limits established by this section.
….
(iv) Whether the failure to grant such a 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.
Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins previously found this to be an unusual
and complex case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) due to multiple
factors, including the nature of the prosecution and the nature and volume of
discovery. (Doc. 85). Throughout the litigation of this case, the parties have
sought, and have been granted, leave to file over-length briefs addressing the
suppression issues, the complications of an international criminal investigation,
and the large amounts of discovery. (Docs. 212; 219). Given the nature of the
prosecution and the existence of novel questions of fact and law, this Court finds
that this continues to be an unusual and complex case under Section
3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), such that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for
pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the statutory time limits.
This Court further finds, pursuant to Section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), that
advancing the trial date of March 30, 2026, would deny counsel for Defendant and
the United States Attorney the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation,
taking into account the exercise of due diligence, particularly considering that
Case: 4:23-cr-00714-CMS-NCC Doc. #: 296 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 4 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

5
March 30, 2026, was the first trial date mutually agreed upon and proposed by the
parties.
In any event, the Court, taking into account the exercise of due diligence,
weighs the ends of justice served by maintaining the trial date of March 30, 2026,
against the best interests of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Pursuant to that weighing analysis, the Court finds the
ends of justice served by maintaining the March 30, 2026, trial date outweigh the
best interests of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial.
Dated this 10th day of December, 2025.
________________________________
CRISTIAN M. STEVENS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:23-cr-00714-CMS-NCC Doc. #: 296 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 5 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>