ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND SETTING CASE SCHEDULE

RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.

The Court, having reviewed the record and files in this case and after a consideration of all relevant information and the circumstances of this case, finds that the ends of justice will best be served by continuing the trial date to November 2, 2015, and orders the parties to comply with the complex case schedule set forth below. The ends of justice outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in having the matter brought to trial sooner.

The Court makes the following findings:

1. Defendant Roman Seleznev is charged in a Second Superseding Indictment with violations of federal criminal law, including wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; crimes in connection with computers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030; access device fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029; and aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. The charges in the Second Superseding Indictment involve allegations of a complex international computer fraud scheme, the object of which was to steal credit card numbers which would then be illegally resold over the internet and used to engage in fraudulent transactions. The Second Superseding Indictment alleges that defendant, using computer infrastructure located in numerous countries around the world, trafficked in millions of credit card numbers, thereby victimizing millions of banks, businesses and individuals, and generating millions of dollars in illicit profits for the defendant.

2. On January 14, 2015, the Court granted prior counsel's motion to withdraw. On January 15, 2015, the Court ordered the appointment of new counsel from the Federal Public Defender's Office. Attorneys Russell Leonard and Dennis Carroll entered notices of appearance on January 15, and January 16, 2015, respectively.

3. The government and defense counsel have indicated that the discovery in this case is voluminous and complex; involves the analysis of multiple complex computer systems; and involves investigations by the government in multiple jurisdictions. Because of the appointment of new counsel, defendant will require substantial additional time in order to adequately review the discovery and prepare for any motions and trial.

4. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ends of justice will best be served by a continuance of the trial date and outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

5. The Court further finds that the failure to grant such a continuance in this case would likely result in a miscarriage of justice because the government and the defendant would be denied the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv);

6. The Court finds, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), that the case is so unusual and complex, due to the nature of the prosecution, the existence of novel questions of fact or law, and the volume of discovery that it would be unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for trial within the time limits established by 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq.; and

7. The Court finds, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv), that the period of delay is reasonable.

Any and all period of delay resulting from this continuance, from the date of this order, until the date of the rescheduled trial, shall be excludable time pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7)(A), for purposes of computation of the time limitations imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161 through 3164.

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Continue the Trial Date (Dkt. #120) is GRANTED. The trial of this matter is hereby continued from May 4, 2015 to November 2, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., and that the parties shall observe the following complex case schedule: