Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01119/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01119-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Willie Ward
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1119

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

* 

Willie Ward, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 23, 2005

Filed: June 28, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After the government failed to bring Willie Ward to trial for being a felon in

possession of ammunition within 180 days of his request for a speedy trial under the

Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA), the district court1

 dismissed Ward's

indictment without prejudice. Ward appeals, arguing that the district court abused its

discretion in failing to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1119 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2005 Entry ID: 1921404
2

The Honorable Terry I. Adelman, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri. 

-2-

On July 10, 2003 a federal grand jury indicted Willie Ward for being a felon

in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Because Ward

was in custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections at the time of the

indictment, the United States Marshal's Office lodged a detainer against him the

following day. Ward responded by requesting a speedy trial under the IADA,

triggering the Act's requirement that he be brought to trial within 180 days. See 18

U.S.C.App. 2 § 2. While the government acknowledges receiving this request on July

19, 2003, it did nothing in response. According to a later declaration by the Assistant

United States Attorney in charge of the case, the government mistakenly believed that

Ward was a fugitive and thus unavailable for prosecution. 

After more than 180 days passed without trial, Ward drafted a motion to

dismiss his indictment based on the government's failure to comply with the IADA.

See 18 U.S.C.App. 2 § 9(1) (dismissal of indictment with or without prejudice for

failure to comply with speedy trial requirements). The Marshal's office received the

motion on April 8, 2004 and forwarded it to the United States Attorney. On May 20,

2004, more than ten months after his indictment, the government requested a writ to

bring Ward before the district court for prosecution. The writ was granted and Ward

filed a motion to dismiss. Following two hearings, a magistrate judge2

 issued a

memorandum recommending that Ward's indictment be dismissed without prejudice

due to the government's failure to initiate proceedings within 180 days of his IADA

request for a speedy trial. The district court adopted the magistrate's

recommendation, granting Ward's motion and dismissing his indictment without

prejudice. Ward appeals.

Under the IADA, a prisoner against whom a detainer has been lodged must be

brought to trial within 180 days of his request for a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C.App. 2 § 2.

Appellate Case: 05-1119 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2005 Entry ID: 1921404
-3-

When federal prosecutors fail to comply with this requirement, the district court may

dismiss the indictment with or without prejudice. Id. § 9(1). The court's decision to

dismiss with or without prejudice is to include consideration of three factors: (1) the

seriousness of the offense, based on both the nature of the charged conduct and the

possible sentence; (2) the facts and circumstances resulting in the dismissal; and (3)

the impact of reprosecution on the administration of justice and the IADA. United

States v. McKinney, 395 F.3d 837, 840-41 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing 18 U.S.C.App. 2

§ 9(1)). 

Ward contends that application of these factors should have led to a dismissal

with prejudice. He first argues that the charged offense is not serious, alleging that

he possessed only three "rusty" rounds of ammunition and that the government did

not give priority to his prosecution. Ward contrasts this with the more serious

conduct in McKinney, 395 F.3d at 841, where we affirmed a dismissal without

prejudice after the defendant fled from the police and was found in possession of

drugs, a firearm, and ammunition. Ward next contends that the government

negligently delayed more than four months beyond the statutory deadline and waited

more than a month after receiving his motion before initiating proceedings. He points

out that in McKinney, the government had missed the statutory deadline by only three

weeks and immediately petitioned the court upon realizing its error. Id. Ward last

argues that the delay has resulted in prejudice because he has now lost contact with

an unidentified potential witness and been denied the opportunity to argue for

concurrent sentences. 

The district court's decision to dismiss Ward's indictment without prejudice is

reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 840. The offense with which Ward was

charged, being a felon in possession of ammunition, carries a statutory maximum

penalty of ten years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). This

type of penalty reflects the seriousness of the charged offense. See McKinney, 395

F.3d at 841 (citing United States v. Duranseau, 26 F.3d 804, 808 (8th Cir. 1994)

Appellate Case: 05-1119 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2005 Entry ID: 1921404
-4-

(felony offense with same maximum penalty held serious under Speedy Trial Act)).

Moreover, Ward may well be subject to an even greater penalty due to his criminal

history. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence for

defendants with sufficient criminal history). The circumstances resulting in the

dismissal of Ward's indictment also support the district court's decision to dismiss

without prejudice since, like the defendant in McKinney, Ward has not shown

"evidence of bad faith or a pattern of negligence" on the part of the government. 395

F.3d at 841. Finally, Ward has not demonstrated any substantial impact from

reprosecution on the administration of justice or the IADA. Ward has presented no

evidence of any prejudice to his defense and has not shown that the government's

delay resulted from bad faith, an improper motive, or a pattern of negligence. See

395 F.3d at 841-42. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in dismissing Ward's indictment without prejudice.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1119 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/28/2005 Entry ID: 1921404