United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
REIDINGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Miller's
Sealed Motion [Doc. 56] and Joint Motion to Continue and
Motion to Permit Document 56 to be Deemed Sealed Memorandum.
April 4, 2017, the Defendant Joseph Samuel Davis
(“Defendant Davis”) was charged in a Bill of
Indictment. [Doc. 1]. Defendant Davis was charged with one
count of conspiracy to commit Federal Program Fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666. [Doc. 1]. Former
co-Defendant Leroy Miller, Jr., (“Co-Defendant
Miller”) was charged in the same Bill of Indictment
with one count of conspiracy to commit Federal Program Fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666, one count of Federal
Program Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B),
one count of extortion under color of official right in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and one count of witness
tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3). [Doc.
Davis' initial appearance and arraignment were held on
April 12, 2017, at which time the Magistrate Judge appointed
counsel for the Defendant and the case was placed on the May
1, 2017 calendar for trial. The Magistrate Judge then
continued the case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(2) to
the June 19, 2017 trial term. On June 6, 2017, the Court
continued the case to the September 5, 2017 trial term. [Doc.
24]. On August 18, 2017, the Court continued the case to the
November 6, 2017 trial term. [Doc. 27]. On October 25, 2017,
the Court continued the case to the January 2, 2018 trial
term. On November 21, 2017, the docket call in this matter
was reset to the January 3, 2018 trial term. On December 19,
2017, the matter was continued to the March 5, 2018 trial
term. [Doc. 33]. On February 20, 2018, the matter was
continued to the May 14, 2018 trial term. [Doc. 37]. On April
20, 2018, the Magistrate Judge accepted and entered a guilty
plea with respect to co-Defendant Miller. [Doc. 46]. On May
2, 2018, Defendant Davis' case was continued to its
current setting during June 25, 2018 trial term. [Doc. 53].
parties now move jointly for a continuance. [Doc. 57]. As
grounds, the parties state that additional time is needed for
reasons stated in the Sealed Motion to Continue [Doc. 56]
that the parties now seek to have deemed a Sealed Memorandum.
In addition to the grounds stated in the Sealed Motion to
Continue [Doc. 56], the parties note that the majority of the
previous continuances granted in this matter were sought by
co-Defendant Miller for reasons personal to him. Further, the
parties state that counsel for the Government assigned to
this case been unavailable recently due to serving on a
committee designated to conduct interviews for the Magistrate
Judge position opening in this District. Additionally, the
parties state they are working extremely hard to resolve this
case “both without the need for a costly trial and to
see that substantial justice and fairness are
accomplished.” [Doc. 57]. The motion to continue is
made jointly and, as such, the Government does not oppose the
requested continuance. [See Doc. 57].
on and in light of the information presented in the Sealed
Joint Motion to Continue, which the Court will deem a Sealed
Memorandum in Support of the instant motion, the Court finds
that the case should be continued and that Defendant's
motion to permit Document 56 to be deemed a sealed memorandum
should be granted. The Court finds that, under the
circumstances, a failure to continue the case would result in
a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. §
reasons stated herein, the ends of justice served by the
granting of the continuances outweigh the best interests of
the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. See
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant Davis'
Joint Motion to Continue and Motion to Permit Document 56 to
be Deemed Sealed Memorandum [Doc. 57] is
GRANTED, and the above-referenced Defendant
is hereby CONTINUED from the June 25, 2018
term in the Asheville Division.
IS SO ORDERED.
 On June 21, 2018, Defendant Davis
filed a Sealed Joint Motion to Continue [Doc. 56]. Defendant,
however, failed to file any motion to file Document 56 under
seal as required by Local Rule 6.1. See LCvR 6.1. On
the same day, the Court advised counsel for Defendant that
counsel should withdraw the Sealed Joint Motion to Continue
[Doc. 56], and then (1) file a motion to continue, (2) file a
motion to seal a memorandum in support of the motion to
continue in which the grounds for sealing were properly set
forth, and (3) file a memorandum stating the grounds for the
motion to continue that counsel deemed sensitive and sought
to be under seal. Instead, counsel for Defendant filed the
motion currently before the Court. [See Doc. 57].
Counsel is strongly cautioned against filing any such motions
in the future as they not only fail to adhere to Local Rule
6.1, but also confuse the Court's docket ...