IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 3:10-CR-73
)
DARREN WESLEY HUFF, ) (VARLAN/GUYTON)
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

All pretrial motions in this case have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) for disposition or report and recommendation regarding disposition by the District

Court as may be appropriate. This case came before the Court on January 4, 2011, for a scheduled

pretrial conference and motion hearing on the United States’ Motion to Revoke Defendant’s Bond

or Modify Defendant’s Conditions of Pretrial Release [Doc. 63].1 Assistant United States Attorneys

Jeff Theodore and A. William Mackie appeared on behalf of the Government. Attorneys Paula R.

Voss, Jonathan A. Moffatt, and Anne E. Pasino represented Defendant Huff.

At the outset of the hearing, the Court noted the impending January 10, 2011 trial

date. Attorney Moffatt moved the Court to continue the trial, arguing that additional time was

needed for the Defendant to receive rulings on outstanding pretrial motions. The Defendant has filed

one motion to suppress evidence [Doc. 22], six motions [Docs. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34] to dismiss

the Superseding Indictment, and two motions requesting a bill of particulars [Docs. 23 and 35]. The

1
The Court’s denial of this motion is set out in a separate order.

Case 3:10-cr-00073 Document 71 Filed 01/07/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 529

Court held hearings on these motions on September 22 and October 12, 2010,2 and permitted

supplemental briefing on the suppression motion. To date, the undersigned has entered Reports and

Recommendations [Docs. 62, 64, and 68] on three of the dispositive motions, and the Defendant has

filed two sets of Objections [Docs. 65 and 67]. At the hearing, Attorney Moffatt stated that the

defense anticipated the possible need for time to file objections to the remaining reports once they

were entered and time to receive the District Court’s ultimate ruling on the issues raised. The

Government believed the oral motion to continue the trial was well-taken and did not object to a

continuance.

The Court raised the issue of declaring the case complex for speedy trial purposes,

due to the number of novel legal issues that the Defendant has raised in his pretrial motions. Both

parties agreed that the case was complex. They parties also agreed to a new trial date of April 12,

2011.

The Court finds the Defendant’s oral motion to continue the January 10, 2011trial

date to be well-taken and that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the

interest of the Defendant and the public in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). As noted

above, the Defendant awaits rulings on seven pretrial motions in this case. 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(1)(D). Several of these motions contain novel questions of law, such as challenges to the

constitutionality of the statutes and whether the statute charged in Count One can be considered a

crime of violence. The Court finds that these motions are of such a nature that the time required to

determine the issues raised therein creates excludable time. See United States v. Tinklenberg, 579

2
At the beginning of this motion hearing, the Court directed the parties to specific
motions on which it sought clarification, permitting the parties to present argument on the
remaining motions at the end of the hearing, if they desired to do so.

Case 3:10-cr-00073 Document 71 Filed 01/07/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 530

F.3d 589, 598 (6th Cir. 2009) (“hold[ing] that a pretrial motion must actually cause a delay, or the

expectation of a delay, of trial in order to create excludable time”), rehg and rehg en banc denied

(Jan. 12, 2010). Moreover, the Court finds that due to the number and novel character of the legal

issues raised, “it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the

trial itself within the time limits established by” the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

The Court finds that this case should be designated as “complex” for speedy trial purposes and that

a continuance is warranted in this case because it is complex. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

Finally, the Court observes that once the Defendant receives rulings on his motions,

the parties will need time to prepare for trial in light of those rulings. The Court finds that all of this

could not take place before the January 10, 2011 trial date or in less than three months. Thus, the

Court finds that the failure to grant a continuance would deprive the parties of time to prepare for

trial despite their use of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

The Defendant’s oral motion to continue the January 10, 2011 trial is GRANTED,

and the trial of this matter is reset to April 12, 2011. The Court also finds that all the time between

the January 4, 2011 hearing and the new trial date of April 12, 2011, is fully excludable time under

the Speedy Trial Act for the reasons set forth herein. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) & -(7)(A)-(B).

With regard to other scheduling in this case, the parties are to appear for a final pretrial conference

on April 1, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. This date will also be the new deadline for completing plea

negotiations. The Court instructs the parties that all motions in limine must be filed no later than

March 28, 2011. Special requests for jury instructions shall be submitted to the District Court no

later than April 1, 2011, and shall be supported by citations to authority pursuant to Local Rule 7.4.

Case 3:10-cr-00073 Document 71 Filed 01/07/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 531

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

(1) The Defendant’s oral motion to continue the January 10, 2011
trial is GRANTED;

(2) The trial of this matter is reset to commence on April 12, 2011,
at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Thomas A. Varlan, United States
District Judge;

(3) All time between the January 4, 2011 hearing, and the new trial
date of April 12, 2011, is fully excludable time under the Speedy
Trial Act for the reasons set forth herein;

(4) A final pretrial conference before the undersigned is set for April
1, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. This date shall also be the plea negotiation
cut-off deadline in this case;

(5) Motions in limine must be filed no later than March 28, 2011;
and

(7) Special requests for jury instructions with the appropriate citation
to authority shall be submitted to the District Court no later than
April 1, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

s/ H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cr-00073 Document 71 Filed 01/07/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 532