United States v. Lewis, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Lewis, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/23

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1597

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

MI CHAEL LEWI S,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. Geor ge Z. Si ngal , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Stahl , and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

J ef f r ey M. Br andt , wi t h whomRobi nson & Br andt , P. S. C. , was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant .

Rene M. Bunker , Ass i st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomThomas E. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Oct ober 4, 2013


2/23

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Thi s case r equi r es us t o

det er mi ne whet her a pr i soner agai nst whom a f eder al det ai ner has

been l odged and who i s er r oneousl y det ai ned by St at e aut hor i t i es

f ol l owi ng t he di smi ssal of St at e cr i mi nal char ges i s i n f eder al

cust ody f or pur poses of t he Speedy Tr i al Act , 18 U. S. C. 3161( b) .

We concl ude that t he appel l ant di d not ent er f eder al cust ody unt i l

Oct ober 3, 2011, t he date on whi ch he was ar r est ed by Uni t ed St ates

Mar shal s and br ought bef or e a f eder al j udge. As such, hi s Oct ober

26, 2011, i ndi ct ment occur r ed wi t hi n t hi r t y days of hi s ar r est on

f eder al char ges and, t her ef or e, di d not vi ol at e t he Speedy Tr i al

Act . We al so r ej ect t he appel l ant ' s cl ai m t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed by f ai l i ng t o i mpose any sanct i ons agai nst t he f eder al

gover nment as a r esul t of i t s pur por t ed f ai l ur e t o not i f y hi mt hat

i t had l odged a f eder al det ai ner agai nst hi m.

I. BACKGROUND

The f act s of t hi s mat t er ar e r el at i vel y st r ai ght f or war d.

The par t i es st i pul at ed t o many of t hemand nei t her par t y chal l enges

any of t he addi t i onal f act s f ound by t he di st r i ct cour t . On August

6, 2011, deput i es of t he Cumber l and Count y Sher i f f ' s Of f i ce

ar r est ed Mi chael Lewi s ( "appel l ant ") at a gr avel pi t i n St andi sh,

Mai ne. 1 I t appear s t hat at t he t i me of hi s ar r est t he appel l ant

had a f i r ear m on hi m, and t hat he had been convi ct ed of at l east

1Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat any f eder al agent or chest r at ed,par t i ci pat ed i n, or was even awar e of t he ar r est .

-2-


3/23

one f el ony i n t he past . Fol l owi ng hi s ar r est , t he St at e of Mai ne

( "St at e") char ged appel l ant wi t h t he f ol l owi ng cr i mi nal count s:

Possessi on of a Fi r ear m by a Fel on i n vi ol at i on of 15 M. R. S. A.

393( 1) ( A- 1) ; Thef t by Recei vi ng St ol en Pr oper t y i n vi ol at i on of

17- A M. R. S. A. 359( 1) ( B) ( 2) ; and Car r yi ng a Conceal ed Weapon i n

vi ol at i on of 25 M. R. S. A. 2001- A( 1) ( B) . The appel l ant was gr ant ed

but di d not post bai l f or r easons not appear i ng i n t he r ecor d.

Thus, he r emai ned i n t he Stat e' s cust ody at t he Cumber l and County

J ai l .

Dur i ng t he af t er noon of Fr i day, August 26, 2011, t he

Uni t ed St at es ( "gover nment " ) f i l ed a compl ai nt i n t he Uni t ed St at es

Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Mai ne char gi ng t he appel l ant

wi t h one count of vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) , possessi on of

a f i r ear m by a convi ct ed f el on. An ar r est war r ant on t he f eder al

char ges was i ssued t hat same day. Lat er t hat af t er noon t he

gover nment pr osecut or cont act ed the St ate pr osecut or t o advi se hi m

t hat a f eder al compl ai nt had been f i l ed agai nst t he appel l ant . The

St ate pr osecut or r esponded t hat he woul d "pr ompt l y di smi ss t he

r el at ed st at e char ges. " The gover nment pr osecut or al so t ol d t he

appel l ant ' s Stat e- appoi nt ed def ense counsel t hat a compl ai nt

agai nst hi s cl i ent had been f i l ed i n f eder al cour t . The r ecor d

does not r eveal whet her t he government al so i nf ormed def ense

counsel t hat i t had been advi sed t he St at e i nt ended t o di smi ss i t s

char ges "pr ompt l y. "

-3-


4/23

The gover nment l odged a f eder al det ai ner at t he

Cumber l and Count y J ai l at 9: 34 a. m. on t he next busi ness day,

Monday, August 29, 2011. 2 Lat er t hat same day, t he St ate

vol unt ar i l y di smi ssed al l i t s char ges agai nst t he appel l ant . What

occur r ed next ( or , mor e accur at el y, f ai l ed t o occur ) set s t he st age

f or t hi s appeal .

The par t i es st i pul at ed as t o t he procedur es gener al l y

f ol l owed by the Cumber l and Count y J ai l when a f eder al det ai ner i s

l odged agai nst one of i t s i nmat es. Once t he J ai l i s advi sed t hat

t he St at e char ges have been di smi ssed, i t cont act s t he Uni t ed

St at es Marshal s Ser vi ce t o l et t hem know t he St at e char ges are no

l onger pendi ng. 3 The Mar shal s Ser vi ce i n t ur n not i f i es bot h t he

appr opr i at e Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t and t he Uni t ed St at es

At t or ney' s Of f i ce. Thus, had t he nor mal and cust omar y pr act i ce

been adher ed t o i n t hi s i nst ance, t he J ai l shoul d have r ecei ved

not i ce of t he di smi ssal of St at e char ges on or soon af t er August 29

and passed t hi s i nf or mat i on al ong t o t he Uni t ed St at es Mar shal s so

t he appel l ant coul d be pl aced i nt o f eder al cust ody.

Ther e i s no quest i on t hat t he cust omar y procedur es broke

down i n t hi s case, as t he appel l ant l angui shed i n t he Cumber l and

2Al t hough the par t i es agr ee on t he exact dat e and t i me t hatt he det ai ner was l odged wi t h t he J ai l , t he document i t sel f i s noti n t he r ecor d. I ndeed, i t i s not cl ear whet her t hat document st i l lexi s ts .

3I t appear s f r om t he r ecor d t hat not i ce of t he di smi ssal ofSt at e char ges i s provi ded by t he St at e cour t .

-4-


5/23

Count y J ai l f or t he next mont h. Dur i ng t hi s t i me, t he J ai l never

not i f i ed t he Uni t ed St at es Mar shal s Ser vi ce t hat t he St at e char ges

had been di smi ssed. As t he Marshal s were not i nf ormed of t he

di smi ssal , t hey di d not not i f y the U. S. At t or ney' s Of f i ce t hat t he

St ate charges had been di smi ssed and t hat t he appel l ant shoul d be

t aken i nt o f eder al cust ody. Thus, t he appel l ant r emai ned

i ncar cer at ed by the St at e despi t e t he f act i t had di smi ssed al l

charges agai nst hi m.

The r ecor d does not provi de any hi nt as t o how l ong t hi s

st at e of af f ai r s woul d have per si st ed i f not f or t he i nt er vent i on

of an out si de act or . Fi nal l y, on Sept ember 26, 2011, t he

appel l ant ' s gi r l f r i end phoned t he U. S. At t or ney' s Of f i ce, st at ed

t hat al l St at e char ges had been di smi ssed, and i nqui r ed as t o why

t he appel l ant was st i l l si t t i ng i n t he Cumber l and Count y J ai l . 4 I t

appear s t hi s phone cal l pr ompt ed act i on on t he appel l ant ' s case, as

t he government pr osecut or assi gned t o t he case t el ephoned t he J ai l

t hat same day. Of f i ci al s at t he J ai l t ol d her t he appel l ant was

st i l l bei ng hel d on t he St at e char ges. Dur i ng t hi s conver sat i on

t he J ai l speci f i cal l y i nf or med t he gover nment pr osecut or i t was not

hol di ng t he appel l ant as a r esul t of t he f eder al det ai ner .

4The st i pul at ed f act s do not i ndi cat e whet her t he appel l ant ' sgi r l f r i end cont act ed or made an at t empt t o cont act t he St at eaut hor i t i es i n addi t i on t o t he U. S. At t or ney' s Of f i ce, nor di d t hedi st r i ct cour t make any f i ndi ngs of f act i n t hi s r egar d.

-5-


6/23

Al so on Sept ember 26, t he government pr osecut or cont act ed

t he St at e pr osecut or vi a el ect r oni c mai l t o i nqui r e as t o t he

st at us of t he St at e char ges. The St at e' s at t or ney r epor t ed t hat

t he St ate charges were di smi ssed on August 29, 2011, and i n r epl y

t he gover nment ' s pr osecut or st at ed t he J ai l was st i l l hol di ng t he

appel l ant on t he St at e char ges. Fr om t he t enor of t he emai l

messages i nt r oduced as exhi bi t s at t he di st r i ct cour t , i t cer t ai nl y

appear s t he St at e' s at t or neys wer e compl et el y unawar e t hat t he

appel l ant was st i l l i n St at e cust ody. I n f ur t her emai l

cor r espondence on Tuesday, Sept ember 27, 2011, t he St ate pr osecut or

i nf ormed t he government ' s prosecut or t hat he woul d cont act t he

St at e cour t t o ver i f y i t had r ecei ved t he St at e' s di smi ssal . He

al so pr omi sed t o ask the St at e cour t t o not i f y the J ai l of t he

dropped char ges.

Whi l e t he r ecor d shows t hat t here was some addi t i onal

emai l cor r espondence bet ween t he Stat e and government at t orneys

r egar di ng t he st at us of t he case over t he next sever al days, no

of f i ci al act i on was t aken and t he appel l ant r emai ned i n St at e

cust ody f or t he next week. Fi nal l y, on Oct ober 3, 2011, t he St at e

pr osecut or cal l ed t he St at e cour t t o have a copy of t he di smi ssal

f axed t o t he J ai l . The St at e' s at t or ney t hen conf i r med wi t h an

of f i cer at t he Cumber l and Count y J ai l t hat t he J ai l had i n f act

r ecei ved not i f i cat i on of t he di smi ssal , and he advi sed t he

government pr osecut or of t hese devel opment s t hr ough emai l .

-6-


7/23

Appar ent l y, once t he J ai l f i nal l y r ecei ved not i ce of t he

di smi ssal on Oct ober 3, i t pr ompt l y cont act ed t he Uni t ed St at es

Mar shal s i n accor dance wi t h i t s usual pr ot ocol . Ther eaf t er t he

gover nment act ed swi f t l y, as on t he same day i t ar r est ed t he

appel l ant on t he f eder al war r ant and br ought hi m bef or e a f eder al

j udge f or hi s i ni t i al appear ance. 5 A f eder al gr and j ur y r et ur ned

a one- count i ndi ct ment on Oct ober 26, 2011, chargi ng t he appel l ant

wi t h vi ol at i ng 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) . The appel l ant r emai ned i n

f ederal cust ody between Oct ober 3 and Oct ober 26, as he wai ved hi s

r i ght t o cont est t he gover nment ' s mot i on t o det ai n hi m pendi ng

t r i al .

The appel l ant subsequent l y f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss t he

f eder al i ndi ct ment f or vi ol at i on of t he Speedy Tr i al Act and f or an

al l eged vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght t o a speedy t r i al under t he Si xt h

Amendment of t he Uni t ed St ates Const i t ut i on. The appel l ant argued

t hat even t hough he was bei ng hel d at a St at e f aci l i t y f r om August

6 t o Oct ober 3, t he di smi ssal of al l St at e char ges and t he l odgi ng

of t he f eder al det ai ner on August 29, 2011, was t he f unct i onal

equi val ent of an ar r est by f eder al aut hor i t i es. The appel l ant t ook

5The Cour t t akes j udi ci al not i ce t hat t he r et urn sect i on on

t he ar r est war r ant i ndi cat es t hat t he warr ant was execut ed onOct ober 3, 2011. See Kowal ski v. Gagne, 914 F. 2d 299, 305 ( 1stCi r . 1990) ( "I t i s wel l - accept ed t hat f eder al cour t s may takej udi ci al not i ce of proceedi ngs i n ot her cour t s i f t hose proceedi ngshave r el evance t o t he mat t er s at hand. " ) . The execut ed ar r estwar r ant wi t h t he si gnat ur e of t he ar r est i ng of f i cer was f i l ed wi t ht he di st r i ct cour t on Oct ober 5, 2011.

-7-


8/23

t he posi t i on t hat t he i ndi ct ment shoul d be di smi ssed because i t was

not i ssued wi t hi n t hi r t y days f r omt he dat e f eder al cust ody began,

as t he Act r equi r es.

The di st r i ct cour t hel d a hear i ng and deni ed t he

appel l ant ' s mot i on on J anuar y 25, 2012. Two days l at er , and wi t h

t he gover nment ' s consent , t he appel l ant ent er ed a condi t i onal

gui l t y pl ea wher eby he r eserved hi s r i ght t o appeal t he deni al of

hi s mot i on t o di smi ss. The di st r i ct cour t appr oved and ent er ed t he

condi t i onal pl ea on Febr uary 3, 2012. J udgment ent ered on May 11,

2012. Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II. DISCUSSION

The appel l ant i nsi st s t hat t he l odgi ng of t he f eder al

detai ner on t he morni ng of August 29, 2011, combi ned wi t h t he

di smi ssal of St at e char ges l at er t hat day, act ed as a de f act o

ar r est by f eder al aut hor i t i es t hat t r i gger ed t he t hi r t y- day "ar r est

t o i ndi ct ment " t i me l i mi t under t he Speedy Tr i al Act , 18 U. S. C.

3161( b) . I n t he appel l ant ' s vi ew, once t he St at e di smi ssed i t s

char ges agai nst hi m, t he f eder al det ai ner became t he f unct i onal

equi val ent of an ar r est because i t was t he sol e l egi t i mat e basi s

f or t he St at e t o cont i nue hol di ng hi m. Usi ng August 29 as t he

st ar t i ng poi nt , he t hen ar gues t hat t he gover nment vi ol at ed t he Act

-8-


9/23

by f ai l i ng t o i ndi ct hi m wi t hi n t hi r t y days, necessi t at i ng

di smi ssal of t he i ndi ct ment . 6

Separ at el y, t he appel l ant posi t s t hat t he gover nment al so

vi ol at ed t he Act by f ai l i ng t o not i f y hi m of t he det ai ner . Whi l e

concedi ng t hat di smi ssal of t he i ndi ct ment i s not an appr opr i at e

r emedy f or any such vi ol at i on, t he appel l ant asks us t o r emand t hi s

mat t er t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or i mposi t i on of an appr opr i at e

sanct i on.

I n r ej oi nder , t he gover nment ar gues t hat t he Speedy Tr i al

Act does not appl y unt i l an i ndi vi dual i s ar r est ed or ser ved wi t h

a summons wi t h r espect t o a f ederal cr i me. Accordi ng t o t he

gover nment , t he f eder al det ai ner di d not f unct i on as a f eder al

ar r est because t he St at e cont i nued t o exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on over

t he appel l ant . The gover nment f ur t her ar gues that t he appel l ant

was never i n cust ody as a r esul t of a f eder al char ge pr i or t o

Oct ober 3, 2011, because t he Cumber l and Count y J ai l was act ual l y

hol di ng hi m on t he pr evi ousl y- di smi ssed St at e char ges. The

gover nment , t her ef or e, ar gues t hat because t he t hi r t y- day ar r est t o

i ndi ct ment t i me l i mi t di d not begi n t o count down unt i l Oct ober 3,

t he Oct ober 26 i ndi ct ment came wel l wi t hi n t he Speedy Tr i al Act ' s

deadl i ne.

6The appel l ant does not press a const i t ut i onal ar gument i nt hi s appeal .

-9-


10/23

As t o t he appel l ant ' s r equest f or sanct i ons, t he

gover nment ar gues t hat t hi s appeal const i t ut es t he f i r st t i me he

has sought any sanct i on ot her t han di smi ssal . Ther ef or e, t he

government ur ges us t o f i nd t he appel l ant has wai ved any obj ect i ons

t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o i mpose sanct i ons.

A. Speedy Trial Act

The di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on t o di smi ss

pr edi cat ed upon the Speedy Tr i al Act i s r evi ewed de novo wi t h

r espect t o quest i ons of l aw. Uni t ed St at es v. Mar yea, 704 F. 3d 55,

63 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Fact ual f i ndi ngs, however , wi l l onl y be

over t ur ned wher e t her e has been "cl ear er r or . " I d. The par t i es

her e have st i pul at ed t o many of t he oper at i ve f act s, and nei t her

par t y has chal l enged any of t he f act s f ound by t he di st r i ct cour t

at t he hear i ng on t he mot i on t o di smi ss. As such, we r evi ew t he

l egal quest i ons de novo.

The mai n t hrust of t he appel l ant ' s appeal i s cent er ed on

t he t hi r t y- day ar r est t o i ndi ctment t i me l i mi t set f or t h i n t he

Speedy Tr i al Act , 18 U. S. C. 3161( b) . The cr i t i cal quest i on t o be

answer ed i s whet her or not t he l odgi ng of t he f eder al det ai ner at

t he Cumber l and Count y J ai l pr i or t o t he di smi ssal of St at e char ges

const i t ut ed a f eder al "arr est " so as t o begi n t he t hi r t y- day

count down. Thi s i ssue i s di sposi t i ve, as t he gover nment ' s Oct ober

26, 2011, i ndi ct ment cl ear l y di d not compl y wi t h t he Speedy Tr i al

Act i f t he cl ock began t i cki ng on August 29.

-10-


11/23

1. Federal detainers

Our anal ysi s begi ns wi t h t he st at ut or y l anguage. The

Speedy Tr i al Act pr ovi des, i n per t i nent par t , t hat "[ a] ny

i nf or mat i on or i ndi ct ment char gi ng an i ndi vi dual wi t h t he

commi ssi on of an of f ense shal l be f i l ed wi t hi n t hi r t y days f r omt he

date on whi ch such i ndi vi dual was ar r est ed or ser ved wi t h a summons

i n connect i on wi t h such char ges. " 18 U. S. C. 3161( b) . The t er m

"of f ense" i s def i ned as " any Feder al cr i mi nal of f ense whi ch i s i n

vi ol at i on of any Act of Congr ess and i s t r i abl e by any cour t

est abl i shed by Act of Congr ess, " wi t h cer t ai n except i ons not

r el evant her e. 18 U. S. C. 3172( 2) . Pur suant t o t he cl ear

st at ut or y l anguage, t he Act appl i es sol el y t o i ndi vi dual s who have

been ar r est ed or ser ved wi t h a summons i n connect i on wi t h an

al l eged f eder al cr i me. See Uni t ed St at es v. Kel l y, 661 F. 3d 682,

687 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "The Act , by i t s t er ms, appl i es onl y wher e

t her e i s an ' ar r est ' or ser vi ce of a ' summons' i n connect i on wi t h

t he r el evant f eder al char ges. " ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C. 3161( b) ) ) ,

cer t . deni ed, 132 S. Ct . 2116 ( 2011) . Thus, onl y t hat cl ass of

i ndi vi dual s i s ent i t l ed t o t he t hi r t y- day ar r est t o i ndi ctment

r equi r ement set f or t h i n sect i on 3161( b) . 7

7Sect i on 3161( h) set s f or t h var i ous "per i ods of del ay" t hatar e t o be excl uded i n cal cul at i ng t he deadl i ne by whi ch ani ndi ct ment must be f i l ed. Because we concl ude t hat t he cl ock di dnot begi n t i cki ng unt i l Oct ober 3, t her e i s no need t o addr ess anyof t hese except i ons.

-11-


12/23

The r ecor d est abl i shes t hat t he appel l ant ' s August 6,

2011, ar r est was ef f ect uat ed by St at e deput i es and r esul t ed i n hi m

bei ng char ged wi t h vi ol at i ons of St at e l aw. Fol l owi ng t hat ar r est ,

he was hel d i n St ate cust ody at t he Cumber l and Count y J ai l af t er

f ai l i ng t o post bai l .

Al t hough t he St at e di smi ssed i t s char ges agai nst t he

appel l ant on August 29, 2011, t he recor d i s devoi d of any evi dence

t hat t he Cumber l and Count y J ai l was not i f i ed of t he di smi ssal i n a

t i mel y manner . To t he cont r ar y, one possi bl e concl usi on emer ges

f r om t he r ecor d. The J ai l was not t ol d t he char ges had been

di smi ssed. Consequent l y, t he J ai l cont i nued t o hol d t he appel l ant

because the J ai l of f i ci al s oper at ed on t he assumpt i on he was st i l l

f aci ng St at e char ges, and not because of t he f eder al det ai ner .

I ndeed, t hi s i s pr eci sel y what J ai l of f i ci al s t ol d t he gover nment

pr osecut or on Sept ember 26, 2011, when she cal l ed t o i nqui r e about

t he appel l ant ' s cont i nued det ent i on.

Cl ear l y, t he emai l exhi bi t s submi t t ed t o t he di st r i ct

cour t r eveal t hat t he J ai l was not awar e at al l t hat t he St at e

char ges had been di smi ssed unt i l t he St at e pr osecut or asked t he

St at e cour t t o f ax a copy of t he di smi ssal t o t he J ai l on Oct ober

3, 2011. The r ecor d shows t hat once t hi s was done, t he J ai l

pr ompt l y advi sed t he Uni t ed St at es Mar shal s of t he di smi ssal . The

Mar shal s i n t ur n swi f t l y ar r est ed and t ook cust ody of t he appel l ant

-12-


13/23

and br ought hi m i n f r ont of a f eder al j udge f or hi s i ni t i al

appear ance, al l of whi ch occur r ed on Oct ober 3.

Based on t hese undi sput ed f act s, we concl ude the

appel l ant was i n St at e cust ody ( t hough per haps unl awf ul l y) f r omt he

t i me of hi s August 6, 2011, ar r est by St at e sher i f f ' s deput i es

t hr ough Oct ober 3, 2011. Dur i ng t hat t i me, he was subj ect onl y t o

t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t he St at e of Mai ne. I t was not unt i l t he

Uni t ed St at es Mar shal s Ser vi ce t ook cust ody of t he appel l ant on

Oct ober 3, 2011, t hat he was ar r est ed i n connect i on wi t h f eder al

char ges. Accor di ngl y, and pur suant t o t he pl ai n l anguage of t he

Act , t he t hi r t y- day ar r est t o i ndi ct ment cl ock di d not begi n t o

count down unt i l Oct ober 3, 2011.

And t he appel l ant ' s Speedy Tr i al Act ar gument si mpl y

cannot be r econci l ed wi t h t he cl ear st at ut or y l anguage. We have

r ecogni zed t hat t he Act " set s br i ght - l i ne r ul es. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Hood, 469 F. 3d 7, 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Ot her Ci r cui t s have not ed

t hat t he Speedy Tr i al Act " i s i nt ended t o mandat e an or der l y and

expedi t i ous pr ocedur e f or f eder al cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons by f i xi ng

speci f i c, mechani cal t i me l i mi t s wi t hi n whi ch t he var i ous

pr ogr essi ons i n t he pr osecut i on must occur . " Uni t ed St at es v.

I aqui nt a, 674 F. 2d 260, 264 ( 4t h Ci r . 1982) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Shahr yar , 719 F. 2d 1522, 1523- 24 ( 11t h Ci r . 1983) .

Consi st ent wi t h i t s mechani cal nat ur e, t he Act set s f or t h

a ver y cl ear t r i gger f or t he t hi r t y- day t i me l i mi t : t he dat e on

-13-


14/23

whi ch a def endant i s arr est ed or ser ved wi t h a summons i n

connect i on wi t h a f eder al of f ense. 18 U. S. C. 3161( b) . The

l odgi ng of a f eder al det ai ner i s conspi cuousl y absent f r omt he l i st

of t r i gger i ng event s. Thi s absence was not an over si ght or

mi st ake, as a subsequent pr ovi si on of t he Act speci f i cal l y

addr esses f ederal det ai ner s and t he pr ocedur es t hat ar e t o be

empl oyed i n t he event a det ai ner i s l odged agai nst an i ndi vi dual

al r eady ser vi ng a pr i son sent ence. See 18 U. S. C. 3161( j ) ( 1) - ( 2)

( r equi r i ng t he per son wi t h cust ody of a pr i soner agai nst whom a

f eder al det ai ner has been l odged t o advi se t hat per son of t he

char ge and t he r i ght t o demand t r i al t her eon) ; see al so Kel l y, 661

F. 3d at 685 ( "The Act . . . addr esses i ndi vi dual s char ged wi t h

f eder al cr i mes who ar e al r eady servi ng a t er mof i mpr i sonment . " ) .

Gi ven t he expl i ci t r ef er ence t o f eder al det ai ner s

el sewher e i n t he Act , i t i s cl ear Congr ess was wel l awar e of t hei r

exi st ence when i t dr af t ed t he Act and, speci f i cal l y, sect i on

3161( b) . The di ct at es of sect i on 3161( b) ar e cl ear . Had Congr ess

i nt ended f or t he l odgi ng of a f eder al det ai ner t o begi n t he t hi r t y-

day count down, i t woul d have i ncl uded det ai ner s as a t r i gger i ng

event al ong wi t h arr est s and summonses. As Congr ess el ected not t o

do so, i t i s not f or t hi s Cour t t o subst i t ut e i t s j udgment f or t hat

of Congr ess and r ewr i t e the st at ut e.

-14-


15/23

2. Appellant's proposed knowledge test

We move on to t he appel l ant ' s r equest t hat we i mput e a

"knowl edge" t est t o t he Act . Accor di ng t o t he appel l ant , t he

count down shoul d begi n on t he dat e t he government knew or shoul d

have known the appel l ant was bei ng hel d due t o t he detai ner and not

t he st at e char ges. I n ur gi ng us t o adopt t hi s t r i gger - - one not

cont ai ned anywher e i n t he Act - - t he appel l ant r el i es on t he opi ni on

of t he Four t h Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s i n Uni t ed St at es v.

Wool f ol k, 399 F. 3d 590 ( 4t h Ci r . 2005) . I n Wool f ol k t he Four t h

Ci r cui t concl uded t hat t he t hi r t y- day cl ock begi ns t o t i ck when t he

government knows or shoul d know t hat an i ndi vi dual i s bei ng hel d by

a st at e f or t he sol e pur pose of answer i ng t o f eder al char ges. I d.

at 596. 8 Af t er car ef ul r evi ew of t he Four t h Ci r cui t ' s opi ni on and

r easoni ng, al ong wi t h t he Supr eme Cour t ' s opi ni on i ssued sever al

8Whi l e t he Four t h Ci r cui t st at ed i n i t s opi ni on t hat t hegover nment ' s "knowl edge" t r i gger s t he cl ock, i t ul t i mat el y r emandedt he mat t er f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o det er mi ne when " t he Gover nmentknew or shoul d have known that [ t he def endant ] was bei ng hel d byt he st at e sol el y because of t he f eder al det ai ner . " I d. at 597.Upon r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t ul t i mat el y f ound- - based on f act sst r i ki ngl y si mi l ar t o t hose we have her e- - no vi ol at i on of t heSpeedy Tr i al Act . See Uni t ed St at es v. Wool f ol k, No. 3: 03 CR00079, 2005 WL 2100933 ( W. D. Va. Aug. 31, 2005) . The courtconcl uded t he def endant r emai ned i n st ate cust ody not as a r esul t

of a f eder al det ai ner but , r at her , because no one not i f i ed t he j ai lonce al l st at e charges had been dr opped. I d. at *3. The cour tf ur t her determi ned t hat t he government di d not and shoul d not haveknown of t he di smi ssal of st at e char ges bef or e hi s arr est by theMar shal s and i ni t i al appear ance i n f eder al cour t , r ender i ng hi ssubsequent i ndi ct ment l ess t han t hi r t y days l at er t i mel y under t heSpeedy Tr i al Act . I d. at *4.

-15-


16/23

year s l at er i n Uni t ed St at es v. Ti nkl enber g, 131 S. Ct . 2007

( 2011) , we decl i ne to adopt a "knew or shoul d have known" t est .

Fi r st , t he Four t h Ci r cui t ' s opi ni on nei t her addr esses t he

cl ear st at ut or y l anguage of sect i on 3161( b) , nor ci t es any

aut hor i t y f or r eadi ng i nt o i t a requi r ement t hat was not i mposed by

Congr ess. As set f or t h above, t he i nt ent of t he Act i s t o pr ovi de

br i ght - l i ne r ul es t hat can be appl i ed mechani cal l y and

consi st ent l y. The appel l ant has not pr ovi ded us wi t h any

convi nci ng aut hor i t y t hat woul d al l ow t hi s Cour t t o modi f y or

di spense wi t h t he Act ' s cl ear l anguage and br i ght - l i ne

r equi r ement s.

Moreover , we ar e concerned t hat t he knowl edge t est f or

whi ch t he appel l ant advocates f r ust r at es t he pur pose of t he Act and

i s unwor kabl e i n pr act i ce. Our t r epi dat i on i s hei ght ened by t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s opi ni on i n Ti nkl enber g, whi ch l eaves no doubt t hat

t he Act i s t o be i nt er pr et ed i n a manner al l owi ng f or t he

appl i cat i on of cl ear and def i ni t i ve r ul es. See 131 S. Ct . at

2015. 9

Ti nkl enber g i nvol ved t he Speedy Tr i al Act ' s r equi r ement

f or t r i al t o commence wi t hi n sevent y days of ( 1) f i l i ng an

i nf or mat i on or i ndi ct ment or ( 2) a def endant ' s i ni t i al appear ance

bef or e a j udi ci al of f i cer . I d. at 2010. The pr ovi si on at i ssue

9The Four t h Ci r cui t , of cour se, di d not have t he benef i t oft he Supr eme Cour t ' s t eachi ng i n Ti nkl enber g when i t deci dedWool f ol k i n 2005.

-16-


17/23

excl udes "del ay r esul t i ng f r omany pr et r i al mot i on, f r omt he f i l i ng

of t he mot i on t hr ough . . . [ i t s] di sposi t i on" f r om t hi s sevent y-

day per i od. I d. ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C. 3161( h) ( 1) ( D) ) . The Si xt h

Ci r cui t had hel d t hat a pr et r i al mot i on f el l wi t hi n t he excl usi on

onl y i f i t actual l y caused or l ed t o an expectat i on of del ay. I d.

The Supreme Cour t r eversed, as t hi s i nter pret at i on woul d

make t he excl usi on "si gni f i cant l y mor e di f f i cul t t o admi ni st er . "

I d. at 2014. The Cour t posed a ser i es of hypot het i cal quest i ons t o

i l l ustr at e i t s concer ns:

[ W] hat i s t o happen i f sever al excl udabl e andsever al nonexcl udabl e pot ent i al causes ofdel ay ( e. g. , pr e- t r i al mot i ons t o t akedeposi t i ons, pot ent i al schedul i ng conf l i ct s,var i ous heal t h exami nat i ons, et c. ) coi nci de,par t i cul ar l y i n mul t i def endant cases? Can t hej udge, mot i on by mot i on, deci de whi ch mot i onswere responsi bl e and whi ch were notr esponsi bl e f or post poni ng what ot her wi semi ght have been an ear l i er t r i al dat e? Andhow i s a def endant or hi s at t or ney t o pr edi ctwhet her or when a j udge wi l l l at er f i nd apar t i cul ar mot i on t o have caused apost ponement of t r i al ? And i f t he mat t er i sdi f f i cul t t o pr edi ct, how i s t he at t or ney t oknow when or whet her he or she shoul d seekf ur t her post ponement of t he 70- day deadl i ne?

I d. at 2015.

The Cour t proposed several met hods of surmount i ng t hose

chal l enges but r ecogni zed that i mpl ement i ng them woul d requi r e

"consi der abl e t i me and j udi ci al ef f or t . " I d. Doi ng so, however ,

"woul d not pr event al l or even most mi st akes, needl ess di smi ssal s

of i ndi ct ment s, and pot ent i al r et r i al s af t er appeal - - al l of whi ch

-17-


18/23

exact a t ol l i n t er ms of t he f ai r ness of and conf i dence i n t he

cri mi nal j ust i ce syst em. " I d. The Cour t al so cri t i ci zed t he Si xt h

Ci r cui t ' s r ul e because i t woul d "t ur n[ ] t he f eder al j udi ci al syst em

away f r om t he f ar l ess obst acl e- st r ewn pat h t hat t he system has

l ong t r avel ed. " I d.

Si mi l ar concer ns are pr esent wi t h r espect t o t he

appel l ant ' s pr oposed knowl edge r ul e. The appel l ant asks us t o

subst i t ut e t he cl ear , br i ght - l i ne r ul e t hat t he t hi r t y- day cl ock

begi ns t o t i ck at t he moment of a f eder al ar r est wi t h a nebul ous

r ul e requi r i ng a case- by- case i nqui r y i nt o when t he gover nment

"knew or shoul d have known" a def endant was bei ng hel d by st at e

aut hor i t i es onl y as a r esul t of a f eder al det ai ner . Thi s woul d

essent i al l y i mpose a requi r ement upon the gover nment t o cont i nual l y

moni t or t he st at us of st at e pr oceedi ngs agai nst ever y si ngl e

i ndi vi dual agai nst whoma f eder al det ai ner has been l odged f or f ear

t hat a r evi ewi ng cour t coul d one day f i nd t hat t he government

"shoul d have known" of t he di smi ssal of st at e char ges shor t l y af t er

t hei r di smi ssal . So t oo woul d t he j udi ci al system be bur dened by

such a r ul e, as i t woul d necessi t at e addi t i onal pr et r i al

f act f i ndi ng wi t h r espect not onl y t o t he act ual pr oceedi ngs i n t he

st at e cour t , but al so wi t h r espect t o what t he gover nment act ual l y

knew and, moreover , what i t shoul d have known. Such a r ul e woul d

i nevi t abl y r esul t i n needl ess di smi ssal s of i ndi ct ment s and

addi t i onal appeal s t o t hi s Cour t .

-18-


19/23

None of t hese bur dens are i mposed by t he cl ear l anguage

of t he Act or by any deci si onal l aw t hat has been br ought t o thi s

Cour t ' s at t ent i on. Thi s st andar d woul d obl i t er at e t he br i ght - l i ne

r ul es set f or t h i n t he Act and r un cont r ar y t o t he concer ns

pr evi ousl y expr essed by t he Supr eme Cour t and by t hi s Ci r cui t . We

have no t r oubl e, t her ef or e, i n r ej ect i ng such an unwor kabl e,

cumbersome, and bur densome st andard, especi al l y where i t i s

obvi ousl y not mandated or cont empl ated by t he st atut ory l anguage. 10

3. "Functional equivalent" arguments

Havi ng di sposed of hi s f i r st t wo ar gument s, we consi der

t he appel l ant ' s cont ent i on t hat a det ai ner i s a "f unct i onal

equi val ent " of an ar r est and t her eby st ar t s t he t hi r t y- day

count down. Al t hough we have not heretof ore had occasi on t o

determi ne whether a f ederal detai ner may act as t he f unct i onal

equi val ent of a f eder al ar r est , we have pr evi ousl y consi der ed a

si mi l ar quest i on of whet her t he t hi r t y- day cl ock begi ns t o r un

whi l e an i ndi vi dual r emai ns i n st at e cust ody on st at e char ges. See

10We f ur t her not e t he appel l ant woul d not be ent i t l ed t o r el i efeven i f we wer e t o adopt hi s pr oposed t est . The cr i t i cal quest i oni n Wool f ol k was t he date on whi ch t he gover nment knew or shoul dhave known t hat t he def endant was hel d sol el y on f ederal charges.399 F. 3d at 597. The J ai l kept t he appel l ant i ncar cer at ed on t he

St at e charges up t hr ough Oct ober 3, 2011, when i t l ear ned f or t hef i r st t i me t hey had been di smi ssed. Ther e ar e no al l egat i ons orevi dence of col l usi on between t he St ate and t he government t osecur e a t act i cal advant age or t o vi ol at e t he appel l ant ' s r i ght sunder t he Speedy Tr i al Act . As such, even under t he appel l ant ' spr oposed r ul e, t he thi r t y- day cl ock woul d not have begun t o countdown unt i l Oct ober 3, 2011.

-19-


20/23

Kel l y, 661 F. 3d 682. As expl i cat ed bel ow, our r easoni ng i n Kel l y

appl i es wi t h equal f or ce her e and i s f at al t o t he appel l ant ' s

posi t i on.

Kel l y consi der ed whet her an i ndi vi dual ' s " appear ance

under a wr i t of habeas cor pus ad pr osequendum const i t ut es an

' ar r est ' or ' summons' under t he [ Speedy Tr i al Act ] " and expl i ci t l y

concl uded t hat i t di d not . I d. at 687. As we expl ai ned, by

i ssui ng a wr i t of habeas corpus ad pr osequendum t he request i ng

j ur i sdi ct i on seeks t o have a pr i soner i n anot her j ur i sdi ct i on

pr oduced t o t he r equest i ng j ur i sdi ct i on i n or der t o st and t r i al .

See i d. Such a wr i t i s "nei t her an ar r est nor a summons" and

di f f er s f r om an ar r est i n t hat i t does not i nvol ve t aki ng an

i ndi vi dual i nt o cust ody. I d. I nst ead, t he wr i t appl i es onl y t o

one who i s al r eady i n cust ody. I d. Al so, t he f act t hat such a

wr i t i s di r ected t o t he i ndi vi dual ' s cust odi an, and not t o t he

i ndi vi dual hi msel f , f ur t her di st i ngui shes i t f r om an ar r est or

summons. I d. Fur t hermore, j ust as Congr ess cl ear l y was aware of

f eder al det ai ner s when i t dr af t ed t he Act , Congr ess was al so "wel l

awar e" of ad pr osequendum wr i t s but chose not t o have t hei r

i ssuance t r i gger t he t hi r t y- day cl ock. I d. at 688. We concl uded

t hat " [ w] her e a st at e ar r est t akes pl ace and t he Uni t ed St at es

l at er f i l es a compl ai nt and a det ai ner seeki ng t o pr osecut e that

i ndi vi dual , t her e i s no f eder al ' ar r est ' under t he Act , as t he

i ndi vi dual i s i n cust ody based on st at e l aw vi ol at i ons. " I d. at

-20-


21/23

689 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Tayl or , 814 F. 2d 172, 175 ( 5t h Ci r .

1987) and Uni t ed St at es v. Copl ey, 774 F. 2d 728, 730 ( 6t h Ci r .

1985) ) ; see al so Wool f ol k, 399 F. 3d at 595 ( " [ T]he Gover nment ' s

f i l i ng of a compl ai nt , ser vi ng of an ar r est war r ant and l odgi ng of

t he war r ant as a det ai ner . . . whi l e Wool f ol k was i n st at e cust ody

answer i ng t o st at e char ges, di d not act i vat e t he pr ovi si ons of t he

Speedy Tr i al Act . ") .

The r easoni ng i n Kel l y appl i es st r ongl y her e. I n

ef f ectuat i ng an arr est or ser vi ng a summons, t he government t akes

af f i r mat i ve act i on agai nst an i ndi vi dual . A f eder al det ai ner ,

however , i s di r ect ed t o an i ndi vi dual ' s cust odi an and does not

ef f ect a t r ansf er of cust ody. I ndeed, a det ai ner expr essl y

cont empl at es a f ut ur e t r ansf er of cust ody. Thus, f or pur poses of

t he Speedy Tr i al Act , t he l odgi ng of a f eder al det ai ner i s r oughl y

equi val ent t o t he i ssuance of a wr i t ad pr osquendum. Accor di ngl y,

we have no hesi t at i on i n hol di ng t hat wher e an i ndi vi dual i s

ar r est ed on st at e char ges and the gover nment subsequent l y f i l es a

compl ai nt and l odges a det ai ner agai nst t hat i ndi vi dual , i f t he

i ndi vi dual r emai ns i n cust ody based on the st ate char ges and not

"i n connect i on wi t h" t he l at er - f i l ed f eder al char ges, 18 U. S. C.

3161( b) ' s t hi r t y- day ar r est t o i ndi ct ment r equi r ement i s not

t r i gger ed. 11

11Thi s i s not t o say t hat a det ai ner coul d never oper at e as af unct i onal equi val ent of a f eder al ar r est . Gener al l y speaki ng, anar r est may occur "when l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s ef f ect a

-21-


22/23

I t f ol l ows her e t hat t he Speedy Tr i al Act ' s t hi r t y- day

cl ock began t i cki ng when t he appel l ant was t aken i nt o f eder al

cust ody on Oct ober 3, 2011. The subsequent i ndi ct ment on Oct ober

26, 2011, was i ssued wel l wi t hi n t hi r t y days. As such, t her e was

no vi ol at i on of t he appel l ant ' s r i ght s under t he Speedy Tr i al Act ,

and t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y deni ed hi s mot i on t o di smi ss.

B. Appellant's Request for Sanctions

Fi nal l y, t he appel l ant ar gues t hat t he gover nment

vi ol at ed 18 U. S. C. 3161( j ) ( 1) ( B) by f ai l i ng t o advi se hi mof t he

det ai ner and t hat i t shoul d have been sanct i oned by the di st r i ct

cour t . The gover nment ar gues t hat t hi s r equest has been r ai sed f or

t he f i r st t i me on appeal and i s, t her ef or e, wai ved.

Our r evi ew of t he recor d bel ow i ndi cat es t hat t he br i ef s

and t he hear i ng at t he di st r i ct cour t f ocused on t he appel l ant ' s

r equest f or di smi ssal onl y. The appel l ant di d not r ai se t he i ssue

of sanct i ons other t han di smi ssal i n even an obl i que way unt i l he

f i l ed hi s r epl y br i ef i n t he di st r i ct cour t , i n whi ch he si mpl y

asked t hat cour t t o "di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment wi t h pr ej udi ce and

si gni f i cant depr i vat i on of an i ndi vi dual ' s l i ber t y. " Copl ey, 774F. 2d at 730. A det ai ner may ei t her r equest not i f i cat i on f r om ast at e pr i or t o r el easi ng an i ndi vi dual f r om cust ody, or ask st at eaut hor i t i es to keep t he i ndi vi dual i n st at e cust ody. See Car chman

v. Nash, 473 U. S. 716, 719, 105 S. Ct . 3401, 3403 ( 1985) . Here,t he St at e cont i nued t o hol d t he appel l ant on St at e char ges pastAugust 29, 2011. "Had t he [ J ai l ] been aware of t he dr opped chargesand cont i nued t o hol d [ t he appel l ant ] under t he aut hor i t y of t hedet ai ner , di f f er ent consi der at i ons woul d appl y. " Copl ey, 774 F. 2dat 730. We do not pass upon what " di f f erent consi derat i ons" maycome i nt o pl ay i n an appr opr i at e case.

-22-


23/23

gr ant ot her appr opr i at e r el i ef . " The appel l ant whol l y f ai l ed t o

speci f y what measures or sanct i ons he bel i eved woul d const i t ut e

"ot her appr opr i at e r el i ef " at any t i me bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t .

Nei t her di d t he appel l ant br i ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s at t ent i on t o

18 U. S. C. 3162( b) , whi ch sets f or t h a r ange of pot ent i al

sanct i ons f al l i ng shor t of di smi ssal t hat may be i mposed t o r emedy

cer t ai n vi ol at i ons of t he Speedy Tr i al Act .

"Passi ng al l usi ons are not adequat e t o pr eserve an

ar gument i n ei t her a t r i al or an appel l at e venue. " Uni t ed St at es

v. Sl ade, 980 F. 2d 27, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on

t hat t he appel l ant ' s cur sor y r equest f or "other appr opr i at e r el i ef "

was anythi ng ot her t han st andar d, boi l er pl at e l anguage. The

appel l ant di d not suf f i ci ent l y r ai se t hi s r equest at t he di st r i ct

cour t and has, t her ef or e, wai ved any cl ai ms of er r or based on a

f ai l ur e t o i mpose a sanct i on shor t of di smi ssal .

III. CONCLUSION

Al t hough we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t he

appel l ant ' s mot i on t o di smi ss i n al l r espect s, t hi s does not si gnal

t hat we make l i ght of or appr ove of what t r anspi r ed whi l e t he

appel l ant was hel d at t he Cumber l and Count y J ai l . However , hi s

gr i evances l i e beyond t he st r i ct ur es of t he Speedy Tr i al Act .

Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t he

mot i on t o di smi ss i s af f i r med.

-23-

United States v. Lewis, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Lewis, 1st Cir. (2013)