UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.JAMES A. BROWN,Defendant.§§§§§§§CR. NO. H-03-363-2 (Werlein, J.)BROWN’S OPPOSITION TO CONTINUANCE
The government has requested this continuance–only a few days before the
trialsetting–not in the interest of justice, but because it has not prepared for trial. Brown is entitled tothis scheduled disposition of counts involving activities which occurred almost eleven (11) yearsago–the interests of Brown, Due Process, and the public demand it. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A)-(C).This Court retains jurisdiction to try this case beginning September 20, 2010, and must do so.
Cf.Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,
459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982)(“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance–it confers jurisdiction onthe court of appeals and divests the district court of its control
over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.
” ) (emphasis added). Any further delay continues to prejudice Brown and violates hisconstitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial. The Court of Appeals effectively severed CountsIV and V–the subject of Brown’s current appeal (
jurisdiction exists in the Fifth Circuit prior toBrown’s resentencing)–and this Court is obliged to exercise its jurisdiction to try Counts I-III andto protect Brown’s rights to a speedy trial and due process.
United States v. Powell
, 24 F.3d 28, 30(9th Cir. 1994) (“appeal from convictions on severed counts [does not] deprive the district courtof jurisdiction over the remaining count[s]”).
Case 4:03-cr-00363 Document 1252 Filed in TXSD on 09/13/10 Page 1 of 11