Description: Tulsa, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with firearm trafficking, making false statements in an attempt to acquire a firearm and make a straw purchaser purchase of a firearm.


The Superseding Indictment in this case charges three (3) Defendants with seven (7) counts involving firearms trafficking, smuggling firearms from the United States, straw purchasing a firearm, and false statement in the attempted acquisition of a firearm. Dkt. No. 37. For the reasons set forth in the sealed Motion, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), the Court finds that this is a complex case and that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the limits established by 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance requested outweigh the interests of the public and the Defendants in a speedy trial. Thus, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), the ends of justice dictate that the period of delay shall be excludable in computing the time from which the Superseding Indictment was filed and the time within which the trial of this action must commence.

Additionally, of three (3) Defendants, only Lopez has entered an appearance. The Motion states the other two Defendants, Juan Antonio Duran (“Duran”) and Jose Nicolas Flores (“Flores”), “are currently in federal custody in the Northern District of Alabama pending trial.” Dkt. No. 50 (sealed) at 2. The Court notes that no writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum nor set of Rule 5 papers has been filed for either Duran or Flores. The Court has a strong preference for codefendants to be tried together. See United States v. Williams, et al., Case No. 22-CR-152-JFH, Dkt. No. 54 (E.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2023) (extending scheduling order over appearing defendant's objection where co-defendants were in the process of being arrested, arraigned, and potentially transported from other districts, and finding the ends of justice were served by continuing the case to allow simultaneous prosecution against co-defendants); United States v. Jones, 530 F.3d 1292, 1298 (10th Cir. 2008) (explaining that liberal joinder of co-defendants' trials “enhance[s] the efficiency of the judicial system” and that “the Supreme Court has long recognized that joint trials conserve state funds, diminish inconvenience to witnesses and public authorities, and avoid delays in bringing those accused of crime to trial”). Since Duran's and Flores' whereabouts are apparently known to the Government, the Court expects that the additional time granted by a continuance will allow for their transportation to this District.

18 USC 371: Conspiracy
(1)
18 USC 933(a)(1), 933(a)(3), and 933(b): Firearms Trafficking; Forfeiture Allegation: 18 USC 924(d)(1), 18 USC 981(a)(1)(C), and 28 USC 2461(c): Firearms Forfeiture
(1s)
18 USC 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2): False Statement in Connection with the Acquisition of a Firearm
(2)
18 USC 554: Smuggling Merchandise from the United States; Forfeiture Allegation: 18 USC 924(d)(1), 18 USC 981(a)(1)(C), and 28 USC 2461(c): Firearms Forfeiture
(2s)
18 USC 924(k)(2)(B): Smuggling Firearms from the United States; Forfeiture Allegation: 18 USC 924(d)(1), 18 USC 981(a)(1)(C), and 28 USC 2461(c): Firearms Forfeiture
(3s)
18 USC 932(b) and 932(c)(1): Straw Purchasing a Firearm; Forfeiture Allegation: 18 USC 924(d)(1), 18 USC 981(a)(1)(C), and 28 USC 2461(c): Firearms Forfeiture
(4s)
28 USC 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2): False Statement in the Attempted Acquisition of a Firearm; Forfeiture Allegation: 18 USC 924(d)(1), 18 USC 981(a)(1)(C), and 28 USC 2461(c): Firearms Forfeiture
(5s)

Outcome: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the sealed motion to declare complex and motion to continue filed at Dkt. No. 50 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: