United States v. Ezra Hallock

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Ezra Hallock was convicted of receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Hallock appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds and alleges four other errors: (1) prosecutorial misconduct; (2) admission of suppressed evidence; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) improper admission of expert testimony as lay opinion testimony. Because the history and facts of the case are familiar to the parties, we need not recount them here.

We affirm the district court’s denial of Hallock’s speedy trial motion. Contrary to Hallock’s argument, scheduling matters, including the need for a continuance, are an attorney’s prerogative and may be decided without client approval. Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242, 249 , 128 S.Ct. 1765 , 170 L.Ed.2d 616 (2008); New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 115 , 120 S.Ct. 659 , 145 L.Ed.2d 560 (2000). Additionally, the Speedy Trial Act (“STA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3161 , permits a court to grant a continuance “at the request of the defendant or his counsel,”…