United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 26, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30384
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARK OLIVARI,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(2:03-CR-273-1-N)
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Mark Olivari was convicted by a jury of
conspiracy to remove merchandise from customs custody and
conspiracy unlawfully to convert merchandise that was part of an
interstate or foreign shipment. He was sentenced to 30 months
imprisonment, three years supervised release, a total payment of
$191,215.37 in restitution, and a $100 special assessment.
Olivari argues on appeal that the district court violated the
Speedy Trial Act (SPA) when it granted the government’s motion for
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
a continuance of the trial beyond the SPA’s time constraints. He
contends that the court did not conduct a proper “ends of justice”
analysis when granting the government’s motion for a continuance
and that the court’s reasons for granting that motion were
inappropriate under the SPA.
There is no indication in the record that the district court
did not conduct a proper “ends of justice” analysis. The record
also reflects that the district court did provide written reasons
for its finding as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). The
district court did not clearly err in granting the continuance. In
fact, had the court not done so, the government would not have had
the time reasonably needed to debrief Olivari’s co-defendants (who
had agreed to plead guilty on the eve of trial) and to reconstruct
the presentation that the government relied on to show its numerous
exhibits throughout the trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv);
United States v. Rojas-Contreras, 474 U.S. 231, 236 (1985)
(district court has broad discretion under Speedy Trial Act to
grant a continuance if needed to allow further preparation for
trial).
Olivari also argues that there was insufficient evidence to
support his conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the jury’s verdict, there was sufficient evidence to
support his conviction. See United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d
907, 910 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Martinez, 975 F.2d 159,
2
160-61 (5th Cir. 1992). Olivari’s conviction and the sentence
imposed by the district court are AFFIRMED.
3