DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
KING BOB LEONARD 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Criminal No. 2019-12 
) 
) 
)  
) 
) 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Gretchen Shappert, United States Attorney 
Sigrid Tejo-Sprotte, AUSA 
United States Attorney’s Office 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For the United States of America, 
 
Yohana M Manning 
Christiansted, VI 
 
For King Bob Leonard. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
Before the Court is the application of King Bob Leonard 
(“Leonard”) to waive his speedy trial. For the reasons stated 
herein, the time to try this case is extended up to and 
including August 31, 2019.   
 
While the Speedy Trial Act requires that defendants be 
tried within seventy days of indictment, the Court specifically 
finds that extending this period would be in the best interest 
Case: 3:19-cr-00012-RAM-RM   Document #: 46   Filed: 04/15/19   Page 1 of 3
United States v. Leonard et al. 
Criminal No. 2019-12 
Order 
Page 2 
 
of justice for several reasons. First, an extension is necessary 
to allow Leonard time to review the discovery in this matter. 
Second, Leonard made his request with the advice and consent of 
counsel. Third, without an extension, Leonard would be denied 
reasonable time necessary to explore settlement options and 
prepare for trial. 
 
Consistent with these concerns, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Third Circuit has recognized that “whether or 
not a case is ‘unusual’ or ‘complex,’ an ‘ends of justice’ 
continuance may in appropriate circumstances be granted.”  
United States v. Fields, 39 F.3d 439, 444 (3d Cir. 1994); United 
States v. Dota, 33 F.3d 1179(9th Cir. 1994) (“An ends of justice 
continuance may be justified on grounds that one side needs more 
time to prepare for trial [even if the] case [i]s not 
‘complex.’”); see also United States v. Lattany, 982 F.2d 866, 
883 (3d Cir. 1992) (“[T]he district court did not abuse its 
discretion when it delayed the trial to give counsel . . . 
opportunity to . . . decid[e] upon and prepar[e] an appropriate 
defense.”); United States v. Brooks, 697 F.2d 517, 522 (3d Cir. 
1982) (holding there was no abuse of discretion where district 
court found that  multiple count, multiple defendant “case was 
complex and required additional time for adequate 
preparation.”). 
Case: 3:19-cr-00012-RAM-RM   Document #: 46   Filed: 04/15/19   Page 2 of 3
United States v. Leonard et al. 
Criminal No. 2019-12 
Order 
Page 3 
 
 
The premises considered; it is hereby   
 
 
ORDERED that the time beginning from the date of this order 
granting an extension through August 31, 2019, shall be excluded 
in computing the time within which the trial for Leonard must be 
initiated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161.  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
District Judge 
 
 
Case: 3:19-cr-00012-RAM-RM   Document #: 46   Filed: 04/15/19   Page 3 of 3