Case ID: f-appx_514/html/0945-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymundo ANDERSON-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10549
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 1, 2013.
    Todd B. Grandy, Donald L. Hansen, Robert E. O’Neill, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Stephen Baer, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Raymundo Anderson-Ruiz, who was convicted of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.

The sole argument made by Mr. Anderson-Ruiz is that the district court erred in not sua sponte holding an eviden-tiary hearing on his speedy trial claim. We find no abuse of discretion, much less plain error. The district court, in denying Mr. Anderson-Ruiz’s motion, assumed that his factual allegations were true. See Docket Entry 13 at 2-3. Because Mr. Anderson-Ruiz does not challenge the district court’s decision on the merits, an evidentiary hearing would not have helped Mr. Anderson-Ruiz in any material way. As we have said before, a district court need not hold an evidentiary hearing where the movant’s allegations, even if true, do not warrant the relief requested. See, e.g., Chavez v. Sec’y Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1072-73 (11th Cir. 2011); United States v. Massey, 89 F.3d 1433, 1443 (11th Cir.1996).

Affirmed.