DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
PAUL GIRARD, SHAQUAN PRENTICE, 
ROBERT BROWN, WAHILLI JAMES, 
SHAQUIELLE CORREA, JAMES CRUZ, 
KAREEM HARRY, TYLER EUGENE, 
ETHERNEAL SIMON, SHERMYRA GUMBS, 
WAYNE BELLILLE, 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Criminal No. 2018-30 
) 
) 
) 
)  
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney 
George A Massucco-LaTaif, AUSA 
Alphonso G. Andrews, AUSA 
Meredith Jean Edwards, AUSA 
United States Attorney’s Office 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For the United States of America, 
 
Ryan W. Greene 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Paul Girard, 
 
Adriane J. Dudley 
Malorie Diaz 
Dudley Rich Davis LLP  
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Shaquan Prentice, 
 
Renee Marie Andre 
Law Offices of Marjorie Rawls-Roberts PC  
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Robert Brown, 
 
Alex Omar Rosa-Ambert 
Rosa-Ambert Law Offices   
San Juan, PR 
 
For Wahilli James, 
Case: 3:18-cr-00030-TJS-RM     Document #: 355     Filed: 04/05/19     Page 1 of 7
United States v. Girard, et al. 
Criminal No. 2018-30 
Order 
Page 2 
 
Jason Gonzalez-Delgado 
Hato Rey, PR 
 
For Shaquielle Correa, 
 
Miguel Oppenheimer  
San Juan, PR 
 
For James Cruz, 
 
Kye Walker 
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Kareem Harry, 
 
Richard F. Farrelly 
Law Offices of Birch DeJongh & Hindels PLLC 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Tyler Eugene, 
 
Richard H. Dollison 
Michall Joseph LaRochell 
Law Offices of Richard H. Dollison PC 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Etherneal Simon, 
 
Kendys Pimentel-Soto 
Kendys Pimentel-Soto Law Office LLC 
San Juan, PR 
 
For Shermyra Gumbs, 
 
Alexander Golubitsky  
Alex Golubitsky P.C. 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Wayne Bellille. 
 
ORDER 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
Before the Court is the motion of the United States to 
extend the time within which the trial in this matter must be 
initiated pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act. 
At its inception, on or about September 13, 2018, this case 
involved three defendants. More recently, the Grand Jury has 
Case: 3:18-cr-00030-TJS-RM     Document #: 355     Filed: 04/05/19     Page 2 of 7
United States v. Girard, et al. 
Criminal No. 2018-30 
Order 
Page 3 
 
returned a Third Superseding Indictment that is much broader in 
scope. 
 
The Third Superseding Indictment charges eleven defendants-
-Paul Girard (“Girard”), Shaquan Prentice (“Prentice”), 
Etherneal Simon (“Simon”), Robert Brown (“Brown”), Wahilli James 
(“James”), Shaquielle Correa (“Correa”), James Cruz (“Cruz”), 
Kareem Harry (“Harry”), Tyler Eugene (“Eugene”), Shermyra Gumbs 
(“Gumbs”), and Wayne Bellille (“Bellille”)--with forty-seven 
criminal counts. Count One charges each defendant with 
participating in a RICO conspiracy. Count Two charges each 
defendant with conspiracy to use a firearm during a federal 
crime of violence. In addition, the Third Superseding Indictment 
includes: 5 counts of murder in aid of racketeering activity, 4 
counts of use of a firearm resulting in death, 10 counts of 
attempted murder in aid of racketeering activity, 2 counts of 
kidnapping in aid of racketeering activity, 3 counts of 
conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, 3 counts of Hobbs Act 
robbery, 1 count of attempted bank robbery, 6 counts of using a 
firearm during a federal crime of violence, 2 counts of assault 
in aid of racketeering activity, 1 count of conspiracy to 
possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 1 count of conspiracy 
to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 1 count of 
possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 1 count of using 
Case: 3:18-cr-00030-TJS-RM     Document #: 355     Filed: 04/05/19     Page 3 of 7
United States v. Girard, et al. 
Criminal No. 2018-30 
Order 
Page 4 
 
a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, 2 counts of 
discharge of a firearm in a school zone, 1 count of possession 
of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, 1 count of 
carjacking, and 1 count of conspiracy to launder money. The 
overt acts alleged and crimes charged in the Third Superseding 
Indictment span a period of over 5 years.  
Eight defendants are charged with one or more capital 
crimes. The United States Attorney General is currently 
reviewing the matter to determine whether the United States will 
seek the death penalty for those defendants. The eight capital 
defendants are entitled to participate in this decision by 
submitting evidence in mitigation to the Attorney General. See, 
e.g., United States v. Lopez-Matias, 522 F.3d 150, 155 (1st Cir. 
2008). 
 
In general, the Third Superseding Indictment lays out a 
vast and wide-ranging criminal conspiracy that is alleged to 
have involved multiple armed robberies and multiple drug 
trafficking operations along with various murders, attempted 
murders, and assaults in furtherance of those endeavors. The 
United States asserts that the associated discovery is 
voluminous. To meet its burden at trial, the United State plans 
to call more than 70 witnesses during its case-in-chief. 
Case: 3:18-cr-00030-TJS-RM     Document #: 355     Filed: 04/05/19     Page 4 of 7
United States v. Girard, et al. 
Criminal No. 2018-30 
Order 
Page 5 
 
The Speedy Trial Act requires that a criminal defendant go 
to trial “within seventy days of the filing date . . . of the 
information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has 
appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such 
charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.” 18 U.S.C. § 
3161(c)(1). The Speedy Trial Act excludes from the seventy day 
clock a “period of delay resulting from a continuance . . . if 
the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings 
that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh 
the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy 
trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A). In making this 
determination, the Speedy Trial Act directs courts to consider 
several non-exclusive factors, including: 
(ii) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, 
due to the number of defendants, the nature of the 
prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of 
fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect 
adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for 
the trial itself within the time limits established 
by this section. 
 
18 USC § 3161(h)(7)(B).  
 
In light of the attendant legal and factual circumstances 
outlined above, and because of the novel questions of law and 
fact presented by the RICO conspiracy alleged in the Third 
Superseding Indictment, the Court finds that this case is 
complex.  
Case: 3:18-cr-00030-TJS-RM     Document #: 355     Filed: 04/05/19     Page 5 of 7
United States v. Girard, et al. 
Criminal No. 2018-30 
Order 
Page 6 
 
 
Further, while the Speedy Trial Act requires that a 
defendant be tried within seventy days of indictment, the Court 
specifically finds that extending this period would be in the 
best interest of justice. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to 
expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the 
trial itself within the normal 70-day time limit. Without an 
extension, the parties would be denied reasonable time necessary 
to review discovery materials, to explore plea negotiations, and 
to effectively 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); see 
also 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.’”); 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 that district court did not abuse discretion by 
Case: 3:18-cr-00030-TJS-RM     Document #: 355     Filed: 04/05/19     Page 6 of 7
United States v. Girard, et al. 
Criminal No. 2018-30 
Order 
Page 7 
 
finding that a multiple count, multiple defendant “case was 
complex and required additional time for adequate preparation”). 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that the motion of the United States docketed at 
ECF Number 200 is GRANTED in part; it is further 
 
ORDERED the time beginning from the date of this order 
granting an extension through July 29, 2019, shall be excluded 
in computing the time within which the trial in this matter must 
be initiated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161; and it is further 
 
ORDERED that the trial in this matter shall commence 
promptly at 9:00 A.M. on July 29, 2019, in Saint Thomas 
Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
District Judge 
 
Case: 3:18-cr-00030-TJS-RM     Document #: 355     Filed: 04/05/19     Page 7 of 7