United States v. Eduardo Ruiz

MEMORANDUM

Eduardo Ruiz appeals his convictions for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, as well as his resulting 108-month sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. The district court did not err in denying Ruiz’s motion to dismiss for violation of the Speedy Trial Act. At the very least, the period of November 8, 2011, to March 13, 2012, was properly excluded under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7), and the overlapping period of March 6, 2012, to . March 26, 2012, was properly excluded under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(1)(H). As to the first time period, the “ends of justice” continuance granted by the district court was “specifically limited in time” and “justified on the record with reference to the facts as of the time the delay [was] ordered.” United States v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213 F.3d 1149, 1164 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Further, a district court granting an “end of justice” continuance need not contemporaneously set down the factual predicate for that determination; simultaneous findings are unnecessary “so long as the trial court later shows that the delay was motivated by proper considerations.” United States…