Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03053/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03053-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro Salgado-Campos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Hon. Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3053

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Nebraska.

Pedro Salgado-Campos, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 9, 2006

Filed: March 31, 2006 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Pedro Salgado-Campos pled guilty and was convicted of possessing with intent

to distribute between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of marijuana and possession of a

firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. On appeal he argues that the

district court1

 abused its discretion by denying his request to extend the time for filing

pretrial motions. Finding no such abuse, we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 04-3053 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2006 Entry ID: 2027673
2

On November 20, 2003, a federal grand jury indicted Salgado-Campos for

possession with intent to distribute between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of marijuana

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1) and with possession of a firearm in

furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). On

December 1, 2003, he appeared with appointed counsel before a magistrate judge and

pled not guilty to both counts. The magistrate set December 22, 2003 as the deadline

for filing pretrial motions. 

After the deadline had expired and appointed counsel had filed no pretrial

motions, Salgado-Campos retained private counsel. His newly-retained counsel

entered an appearance on January 25, 2004. Shortly thereafter, on February 4, 2004

counsel filed a motion requesting a continuance, which the magistrate judge granted.

On March 2, 2004, he requested a second continuance, which the magistrate judge

also granted, setting the case for trial on April 12, 2004. 

On March 21, 2004, counsel for Salgado-Campos filed a motion requesting an

extension of time in which to file pretrial motions. Counsel cited his recent retention

and his desire to file a motion to suppress certain incriminating evidence as grounds

for the motion. The magistrate judge denied the motion, concluding that SalgadoCampos had failed to show good cause to justify an extension. Salgado-Campos

appealed the denial to the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

At a hearing on the appeal before the district court, counsel argued that an

extension was warranted because by the time he had been retained, had an

opportunity to review the police reports in the case, and realized that there was "a

very serious question" regarding the seizure of the incriminating evidence, the

deadline for filing pretrial motions had already passed. The district court rejected this

argument and affirmed the magistrate judge's order. 

Appellate Case: 04-3053 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2006 Entry ID: 2027673
3

Shortly thereafter, Salgado-Campos entered into a plea agreement with the

government and pled guilty to both counts of the indictment. The district court

sentenced him to 60 months' imprisonment on each count to run consecutively and

ordered him to pay a special assessment. This appeal followed.

Under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court may set

a deadline for the filing of pretrial motions. If a party fails to file a pretrial motion

before that deadline, the party waives that issue. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(e).

However, the district court has the discretion to excuse the waiver upon a showing

of good cause for the delay. Id. We will reverse a decision declining to consider an

untimely pretrial motion only for an abuse of that discretion. United States v.

Casares-Cardenas, 14 F.3d 1283, 1285-86 (8th Cir.1994) (citing United States v.

Garrett, 961 F.2d 743, 748 (8th Cir. 1992)). 

 There is no doubt that the motion to suppress that Salgado-Campos wished to

file was untimely. The deadline for filing pretrial motions was December 22, 2003.

Substitute counsel made his request for an extension of time in which to file pretrial

motions nearly three months after this deadline had expired and nearly two months

after he entered his initial appearance. Thus, under Rule 12(e), he had waived the

suppression issue. 

Salgado-Campos's only explanation for this untimeliness is that counsel's

request for an extension came "as soon as he might have been expected to have been

apprised of the substantial issues for suppression in the case." For legal support he

relies upon United States v. Chavez, 902 F.2d 259 (4th Cir. 1990). There, the Fourth

Circuit concluded that the denial of an untimely suppression motion may constitute

an abuse of discretion where the delay was the result of the government's failure to

disclose information pertinent to the motion until after the pretrial motion deadline

had expired. Id. at 262-64. 

Appellate Case: 04-3053 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2006 Entry ID: 2027673
4

Salgado-Campos's reliance on Chavez is misplaced. Unlike the defendant in

Chavez, Salgado-Campos makes no showing that the government failed to disclose

pertinent information until after the deadline had already passed. Indeed, SalgadoCampos fails to identify any discovery materials that were not made available to

substitute counsel either at the time he entered his initial appearance or in the months

that followed. In short, unlike the defendant in Chavez, Salgado-Campos fails to

demonstrate that his tardiness was not due to "negligence, oversight, or laziness." See

id. at 263-64.

Because Salgado-Campos fails to show good cause justifying his delay, the

district court was well within its discretion to deny his request for an extension of

time in which to file pretrial motions. See Garrett, 961 F.2d at 748. The judgment

of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3053 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/31/2006 Entry ID: 2027673