USA v. Hernandez et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-25-400-D
)
SALVADOR HERNANDEZ 	)
HERNANDEZ, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Salvador Hernandez Hernandez’s Second Unopposed
Motion to Continue Jury Trial and Extend Pre-Trial Motion Deadlines [Doc. No. 62].
Defendant seeks a continuance of his trial from the February, 2026 to the April, 2026 trial
docket and to continue the existing pre-trial motion deadlines. Defendant has submitted a
Waiver of Right to Speedy Trial [Doc. No. 66], acknowledging his rights under the Speedy
Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-74, and waiving those rights for the period of delay.
Upon consideration of the Motion, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by
granting a two-month continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendant
in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A); see also United States v. Toombs, 574
F.3d 1262, 1272-73 (10th Cir. 2009). Specifically, accepting the representations of counsel,
the Court finds for the reasons fully set forth in the Motion that denying Defendant’s
request would deprive him of a reasonable amount of time needed for further effective
investigation, motion practice, and trial preparation, taking into account the exercise of due
diligence by counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Also, under the circumstances,
Case 5:25-cr-00400-D Document 67 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 2

2
denying the Motion would likely deprive Defendant of effective representation of counsel
and result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
In making these findings, the Court has considered the statutory factors set forth in
§ 3161(h)(7)(B) and has concluded that the requested continuance is fully consistent with
congressional policies and precedent. See Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196, 214
(2010); Toombs, 574 F.3d at 1269. Further, no circumstance is present that would prohibit
a continuance pursuant to § 3161(h)(7)(C). Therefore, the period of delay caused by the
granting of Defendant’s Motion is excludable for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Second Unopposed Motion
[Doc. No. 62] is GRANTED. This case is stricken from the February 10, 2026 trial docket
and reset on the Court’s April 2026 trial docket.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pretrial motions pursuant to LCrR12.1 and
motions in limine shall be filed on or before March 13, 2026, with responses due on March
20, 2026. Requested jury instructions and voir dire shall be filed by March 27, 2026, with
objections due April 3, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4 th day of February, 2026.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cr-00400-D Document 67 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 2