MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Defendant Orozco-Guillen has filed a motion to sever. He argues that being joined with the other two defendants has unduly delayed his case because they requested continuances while he was ready for trial.

An unreasonable delay may justify severance. The Circuit has held in one case that a one-year delay should have prompted a severance. U.S. v. Messer, 197 F.3d 330 (9TH Cir. 1999). And where one defendant required a substantial open-ended delay due to federal funding issues for public defenders while the other defendant was ready for trial, the District Court granted a severance to the defendant ready for trial. U.S. v. Stehl, 2013 WL 12170491 (Nov. 27, 2013).

The circumstances in this case, however, do not justify severance. Just a few weeks after Orozco-Guillen filed his motion to sever, the Government filed a Superseding Indictment, adding four distribution counts and a fifth count under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute. A few weeks after that, Orozco-Guillen filed a motion to suppress that ultimately required an evidentiary hearing. That hearing was held within two months of the motion being filed, and the Court issued its decision denying the motion within just a few weeks after the hearing. See Memorandum Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 71). Trial for all three defendants will begin about two months after the Court's decision on Orozco-Guillen's motion to suppress.

There has been no unreasonable delay warranting a severance in this case. Thus, the Court will deny the motion to sever.

ORDER

In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to sever (docket no. 53) is DENIED.