[PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 21 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-2 10 75 -MGC- 1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JAM ES MATHURIN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Aug us t 1 5, 2 01 2) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR, an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t J am es Mathu rinwas c on vi ct edof anu m be r of arm ed ro bb ery an d weapo ns ch arg es . Thes e co nv ic ti on s re su lt edfro m a fi ve -m on th -lo ng Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 1 of 18cri m e sp ree i n M ia m i-Da de Co un ty tha t t oo k p la ce wh enMr. Ma th ur in was

se ve nt een -y ears -o ld . On ap pe al , Mr. Ma th ur in ch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on s o n a nu m be r of gro un ds , on e o f whi chis th atth e g ov ern m en t v io la te d h is rig ht s u nd er th e Sp eedy

Trial Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 31 61 et s eq . Thi s ca se requi res us to de ci de th e n arro w qu es ti on of wh ethe r th e ti m e du rin g wh ic h p le a n eg ot ia ti on s ar e co nduc te d i s au to m at ic al ly excl ud ab le fro m th e Sp eedy Trial Act’s thi rty-day wind ow fo r fi li ng anin fo rm at io n o r in di ctm en t. Fo r th e rea so ns th atfol lo w, we hav e co nc lu de d t ha t the ti m e dur in g wh ic h p le a ne go ti at io ns are co nduc te d i s n otau to m at ic al ly excl ud ab le . I. FACTUAL BACKG ROUND AND P ROCEDURAL HI STO RY On the ni gh t o f Decem

be r 12 , 20 07 , sev en te en -y ear- ol d J am es Mat hu rin , al on g wi th Marc ks on Sai ntFle ur , were arr es te d b y po li ce o n s us pi ci on th atth ey ha d c arjack edanAcur a atgu np oi ntearl ie r th atev en in g. Th atsame nig ht , Mr. Mat hu rin co nf

es se d h is in vo lv em en t i n t he Acur a car jack in g t o p ol ic e. 1 Inth e d ay s t ha t fo ll owe d, M r. Mat hu rin be ga n t o t el l the po li ce ab ou t h is in vo lv em en t i n asp ree o f ot he r car jack in gs an d a rm edrob be rie s tha t h adhapp en ed in Mi am i-Da de Co un ty ove r th e p rev io us m on th s. Fo r m os t o f th es e cri m es , Mr.

Mr. Mathurin argues that his post-arr est statements should be suppre ssed on a number of 1 grounds. We do not addre ss those issues here . 2

Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 2 of 18Mat hu rin was c ha rg edwith a ct in g t og ethe r wit h fe ll ow g an g m em be rs su chas M r. Sai ntFle uran d p la y in g t he rol e o f gu nm an . The g ov ern m en t t el ls us th ataft er Mr . Mat hu rin m ad e h is in cri m in at in g s ta te m en ts , det ect iv es “ re-e xa m in edth ei r cas e fil es , in te rv ie wedth e wit ne ss es , di sp la y edph ot o l in e-ups an d o th erwi se so ug htto co rro bo rat e Ma thur in ’s acco un ts of t ho se un so lv edcri m es .” Thi s co op erat io n co nt in ue d o ve r a p eri odof s ev eral m on th s. Du rin g t hi s t im e, st at e ch arg es were fil edag ai ns t M r. Mat hu rin forsev eral of t he cri m es inwhi chhe ha d i m pl ic at ed hi m se lf. By May 200 8, fe de ral pro se cu to rs were i nv ol ve d. OnApri l 1 , 20 09 , th e U.S. Att orne y

for th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a fi le d ajuv en il e in fo rm at io n ch arg in g M r. Mat hu rin with fo rty-ni ne off en se s o ccu rri ng be twee n J ul y 26 , 20 07 an d Dec em

be r 12 , 20 07 . Thatsame day , th e g ov ern m en t al so m ov edth e Dis tri ct Co urt t o t ran sf

er Mr . Mathu rin forcri m in al pro se cu ti onas a n a du ltforth e act s s et fo rth inth e juv en il e in fo rm at io n. Ba se d o n t he juv en il e in fo rm at io n, M r. Mat hu rin was tak enin to fed eral cu st od y onApri l 9 , 20 09 an d m ad e h is in it ia l ap pe aran ce be fo re a m ag is tra te jud ge th atda y . By th e su m m er o f 20 09 , pl ea n eg ot ia ti on s wer e und erway and , as p artof th os e n eg ot ia ti on s, M r. Mat hu rinag reedto waiv e h is rig htun de r th e Ju ve ni le Ju st ic e an d Del in qu en cy

Prev en ti on Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 50 31 et s eq ., no t t o b e

3 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 3 of 18pr os ecu te d a s an adul t. As ares ul t, o n Au gu st27 , 20 09 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt en te red

anOrde r al lo win g t he go ve rn m en t t o p ro ceedag ai ns t h im as a n a du lt . Mr. Mat hu rin als o wai ve d h is rig htto be ho us edsep arat el y fro m adul t p ris on ers , and anOrde r was co ns eque nt ly ent eredpe rm it ti ng hi m to be ho us edwith a du lt pr is on ers . Mr. Ma thur in cla im s t ha t b il at eral pl ea n eg ot ia ti on s co nt in ue d fr om th at po in t u nt il Nov em

be r 10 , 20 09 . The g ov ern m en t, h owe ve r, as se rts th atpl ea ne go ti at io ns co nt inue d u nt il th e en d o f Decem be r 20 09 . The g ov ern m en t d oe s

2 no t d is pu te th atonNov em be r 10 , 20 09 Mr. Ma th ur in sai d t o g o a he adan d i nd ic t hi m . Butth e g ov ern m en t m ai nt ai ns th at , at the co nc lu si on of t he Nov em be r 10 th m eet in g, M r. Mat hu rin ’s def en se co un se l n on ethe le ss ask edth atth e in di ctm en t b e de la y edso th athe co ul d fu rth er d is cu ss th e g ov ern m en t’s o fferwith h is cli en t. Afte r rec ei vi ng ev id en ce fr om bo th si de s, the Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo un d tha t p le a ne go ti at io ns co nt inue d u nt il Decem be r 22 , 20 09 —the da te of ast atus co nf eren ce—whe n M r. Mat hu rin cle arl y reject edth e p le a o ffer . A week af te r th e st atus co nf

eren ce, o n Dec em

be r 29 , 20 09 , th e g ran d jury returne d a n i nd ic tm en t The g overnme nt give s two Dec ember dates. On pa g e 46 of its brief , the g overnme nt 2 claims that plea ne g otiations continued until Decembe r 29, 2009. Howe ver, on the next page , the g overnme nt say s “the district cour t properly conclude d that the plea ne g otiations persisted until Dec ember

22, 2009.” 4 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 4 of 18ag ai ns t M r. Mat hu rin th atmirr or edth e juv en il e in fo rm at io n. Onc e Mr. M athu rin

was re-arres te d p ur su an t t o t hi s i nd ic tm en t, the juv en il e in fo rm at io n was di sm is se d. OnApri l 2 0, 2 01 0, the gra ndjury returne d asupe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t. The ke y di ffer en ce b etweenth e o rig in al an d s up ers ed in g i nd ic tm en ts was the ad di ti on of M r. Sai ntFle ur to th e co ns pi racy char ge s an d t o o ne of t he subs ta nt iv e co un ts . On Ap ril 28 , 20 10 , Mr. Ma th ur in m ov edto di sm is s al l ch arg es ba se d o n vi ol at io ns of t he Sp eedy

Trial Act. Inres po ns e, th e Ma gi st rat e Ju dg e h el d a he ari ng on May 19, 2 01 0. Th e Ma gi st rat e Ju dg e u lt im at el y reco m m en de d d en y in g Mr. Ma th ur in ’s m ot io n fo r rel ie f un de r th e Sp eedy Trial Act, as well as M r. Mat hu rin ’s othe r m ot io ns to supp res s i nc ul pa to ry po st -arr es t s ta te m en ts , sev er co un ts , andsupp res s i de nt ifi cat io n t es ti m on y . Over M r. Mat hu rin ’s ob jecti on s, th e Dis tri ctCo urt ad op te d t he Mag is tra te Ju dg e’s reco m m en da ti on s. Afte r a tria l, a jury

fou ndMr. Ma thur in gu il ty of on e co un t o f co ns pi racy to co m m ita ro bb ery in vi ol at io n o f th e Hob bs Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 51 (a), o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to c arry a firea rm infurth eran ce o f a cri m e o f vi ol en ce i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (o ), two co un ts of a tt em pt edrob be ry

invi ol at io n o f th e Hob bs Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 51 (a), twelv e co un ts of p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm infurth eran ce of a cri m e o f vi ol en ce i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 ), twel ve co un ts of 5 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 5 of 18ro bb ery in vi ol at io n o f th e Hob bs Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 51 (a), an d t wo co un ts of

carjac ki ng invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 9( 1) . At th e sa m e ti m e, Mr. M athu rin was acqui tt edof anu m

be r of ot he r ro bb ery an d fi rearm s o ffen se s. Th e Dis tri ct Co urt s en te nc edhi m

to 49 2 m on th s o f im

pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d b y

fiv e y ears of supe rv is edrel eas e. Mr. Ma th ur in ti m el y ap pe al ed , rai si ng a nu m

be r of is su es . Here we ad dr es s o nl y

hi s cl ai m un de r th e Sp eedy

Trial Act. II . STANDARD OF REVIEW

“ W e rev ie w a cla im

un de r th e Sp eedy

Trial Act d e n ov o a ndrev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io ns on ex cl ud ab le ti m e fo r cl ear e rro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Will ia m s, 3 14 F.3d55 2, 5 56 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). II I. DI SCUSSI ON The Sp eedy

Trial Act (t he Act) requi res th e g ov ern m en t t o fi le an in di ctm en t o r in fo rm at io n a ga in sta de fen da ntwithi n t hi rty days fro m th e d at e o n whi chhe was a rres te d o r se rv edwith asu m m on s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( b) . At th e sa m e ti m e, th e Actex cl ud es fro m th e th irt y -d ay

pe rio d d el ay s due to cert ai n enum erat edev en ts . See i d. § 31 61 (h ). As p art ic ul arl y rel ev an t h ere, the Act au to m at ic al ly excl ud es “ [a]ny pe rio d o f de la y res ul ti ng fro m

othe r pr oc eed in gs co nc ern in g t he de fen da nt , in cl ud in g b utno t l im it edto ” p eri od s o f de lay res ul ti ng

6 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 6 of 18fro m

eig htenum erat edsubc at eg or ie s o f pr oc eed in gs . Id. § 31 61 (h )(1 ). Am on g 3 th es e ei gh t s ub cat eg or ie s o f de la y is “ de la y res ul ti ng fro m

co ns id erat io n b y

th e co urt o f a p ro po se d p le a ag reem en t t o b e en te redin to by the de fen da ntan d the at to rn ey forth e g ov ern m en t.” Id . § 3 16 1( h) (1 )(G). If the th irt y -d ay ti m e li m itis no t m et , th e Acten ti tl es th e d efen da ntto th e d is m is sa l o f th e ch arg es co nt ai ne d i n th e in it ia l co m

pl ai nt . See i d. § 31 62 (a)( 1) . Mr. Mat hu rin arg ue s t ha t b ecau se th e de la y of t he fil in g o f th e in di ctm en t u nt il Decem be r 29 , 20 09 was n otex cu se d un de r an y cat eg ory enum erat edinth e st atut e, th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto in di cthi m withi n t he pe rio d re qu ire d b y th e Act . For t hi s re as on , he a rg ue s t ha t the ch arg es fil edag ai ns t h im

sh ou ldhave be endi sm is se d. Th e Dis tri ctCo urt d is ag reed , andit is th atde ci si on we no w rev ie w. A. On Dec em

be r 29 , 20 09 , th e g ov ern m en t i nd ic te d M r. Mat hu rin . To de te rm in e whe th er the go ve rn m en t t im el y in di ct edMr. Ma th ur in inke ep in g wi th in th e Act , we m

us t fi rs t es tabl is h wh enth e st atut ory th irt y -d ay

pe rio d b eg an .

“The excludability

of dela y ‘re sulting from . . . proce eding s’ under subsection (h)( 1) is 3 ‘automatic’ in the sense that a district court must exclude such delay from a Spee dy

Trial Ac t calc ulation without any

further analy sis as to whether the benef it of the delay

outweighs its cost.” Bloate v. United States, __ U.S. __, __, 130 S. Ct. 1345, 1349 n.1 (2010). 7 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 7 of 18On Ap ril 1, 2 00 9, the go ve rn m en t fo rm al ly beg anto see k M r. Mat hu rin ’s

tra ns fer t o a du ltst atus . Mr. Mat hu rin di d n otop po se th e g ov ern m en t’s re qu es t t o pr oc eedag ai ns t h im

as a n a du lt , andon Aug us t 2 7, 2 00 9, the Co urt p erm it te d t he adul t p ro ceed in gs . At th e ti m e th e Co urt g ran te d t he reque st , itha d re vi ewedth e ch arg es inth e juv en il e in fo rm at io n, wh ic h wer e th e b as is forth e g ov ern m en t’s pl an ne d p ro se cu ti on of M r. Mat hu rin as a n a du lt . Mr. Mathu rin arg ue s i t was th at tra ns fer fr om

juv en il e to adul t s ta tu s t ha t trig ge redth e Act ’s th irt y -d ay clo ck . Whe n t hi s i ss ue was b efo re the Dis tri ctCo urt, the go ve rn m en t ag reedth at th e th irt y -d ay

pe rio d b eg anto run fro m Aug us t 2 7, 2 00 9, the da te of M r. Mat hu rin ’s tra ns fer. Now, itdi sp ut es th is , andadva nc es th e th eo ry th atth e Act ’s 4 Duringthe May

19, 2010 hearing on Mr . Mathurin’s motion to dism iss the indictment, 4 the followingexchang e took place betwee n the District Court and the g overnme nt: Court: Okay . L et’s bac k up. Okay . When did the time period for indictment

beg in? What date was that? Gover nment: I f we count, the ver y first possible countingdate would have bee n August 27th.

. . . . Court: On August 27th he is certified a s an adult? Gover nment: Correc t. Court: The thirty

day s starts to run, right? Gover nment: Correc t. Court: It is running? 8 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 8 of 18th irt y -d ay

clo ckforth e fi li ng of a n i nd ic tm en t o r in fo rm at io n d idno t ap pl y to Mr. Mat hu rin du rin g t hi s p eri odbe cau se th e juv en il e in fo rm at io n was pe nd in g. W e th in k t he go ve rn m en t’s p os it io n fr om th e Ma y 19 , 20 10 he ari ng is th e b et te r vi ew: Mr. Ma th ur in ’s tra ns fer t o a du ltst atus ba se d o n the ch arg es co nt ai ne d i n t he juv en il e in fo rm at io n m eet s t he st atut ory requi rem en t fo r anarre stor s umm on s i n tri gg eri ng th e Act ’s th irt y -d ay sp eedy -in di ctm en t cl oc k. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Pet e, 52 5 F .3d84 4, 8 48 (9t h C ir. 2 00 8) (su gg es ti ng th atth e sp eedy -in di ctm en t cl oc k be ga n t o ru n “ whe n t he di stric t co urt g ran te d t he go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n t o p ro ceed ag ai ns t [t he de fen da nt ] as anadul t” ). Thu s, we co nc lu de th atth e th irt y -d ay clo ck was tri gg eredon Aug us t 2 7, 2 00 9. B. Altho ug h t he ti m e b etweenAug us t 2 7, 2 00 9 a ndDecem be r 29 , 20 09 is m or e th anth irt y

da y s, the go ve rn m en t i ns is ts th atitdi d n otvi ol at e th e Act . It cl ai m s t ha t p le a n eg ot ia ti on s, wh ic h wer e o ng oi ng th ro ug ho utm os t o f th is pe rio d, to ll th e th irt y -d ay

sp eedy -in di ctm en t cl oc k u nd er the st atut e as “ ot he r pr oc eed in gs co nc ern in g t he de fen da nt ,” 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (1 ). Bas edon th is , th e g ov ern m en t arg ue s t he re was no de ad li ne vi ol at io n. 5 Gover nment: Yes, sir. The g overnme nt does not advanc e any other ba sis for excluding time betwe en August 5 27, 2009 and De cembe r 29, 2009 fr om the calc ulation of the thirty -day period. 9 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 9 of 18Whe th er d el ay res ul ti ng fro m

pl ea n eg ot ia ti on s i s au to m at ic al ly excl ud ab le un de r th e Actis anis su e upo n wh ic h o ursi st er Ci rcu it s h av e n otalway s ag reed . Co m pa re Un it edSta te s v . Alv arez -Per ez, 6 29 F.3d10 53 , 10 58 (9t h C ir. 2 01 0) (n ot in g t ha t “ in ge ne ral , ti m e d ev ot edto pl ea n eg ot ia ti on s i s n otau to m at ic al ly ex cl ud ed ”), an d Un it edSta te s v . Lucky , 56 9 F .3d10 1, 1 07 (2dCir . 20 09 ) (co m m en ti ng th at“pl ea n eg ot ia ti on s d o n otfitco m fo rtabl y in to th e ‘oth er pr oc eed in gs ’ la ng ua ge of s ect io n 3 16 1( h) (1 )”), wi th Uni te d S ta te s v . Lefte na nt , 34 1 F .3d33 8, 3 44 –4 5 (4 th Cir . 20 03 ) (h ol di ng th atpl ea n eg ot ia ti on s re la te d t o a se pa rat e se t o f ch arg es co un te d a s “ ‘oth er p ro ceed in gs ’ withi n the m ean in g o f § 3 16 1( h) (1 )”), an d Un it edSta te s v . Bowe rs , 83 4 F .2d60 7, 6 10 (6t h C ir. 1 99 7) (ex pl ai ni ng indi ct a th at“ th e p le a b arg ai ni ng pro ces s can qua li fy as o ne of m an y ‘oth er p ro ceed in gs ’”). Howev er, u nl ik e th e Ci rcu it s ad dr es si ng th is qu es ti on in 6 th es e cas es , we no w hav e th e b en efi t o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s re cen t d eci si on in Bl oa te v. Un it edSta te s, _ _ U.S. _ _, 1 30 S. Ct. 1 34 5 (2 01 0) . Blo at e is in st ru ct iv e he re b ecau se itset s l im it s t o t he see m in gl y expans iv e cat eg ory

of “ de la y res ul ti ng fro m ot he r pr oc eed in gs co nc ern in g t he de fen da nt .” In dicta, the Seve nth and Eighth Circuits have embra ced theidea that plea neg otiations 6 qualify as “othe r proc eeding s conce rningthe def endant.” See United States v. Va n Someren, 118 F.3d 1214, 1218 ( 8th Cir. 1997); United States v. Montoy a, 827 F .2d 143, 150 (7th Cir. 1987). Yet, the Eighth Circuit has more re cently expressed doubt about “a per se rule that a ll tim e periods in which ther e [are] any open plea

neg otiations [ is] excludable.” United States v. Elmardoudi, 501 F.3d 935, 942 ( 8th Cir. 2007). 10

Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 10 of 18Acco rd in g t o t he Supr em e Co urt, wh enth e cat eg ory of d el ay at i ss ue is

“ go ve rn edby” on e o f § 3 16 1( h) (1 )’s ei gh t s ub parag rap hs , id . at 1 35 2, a c ou rt m us t lo okon ly to tha t s ub pa rag rap h t o s ee i f th e d el ay is au to m at ic al ly excl ud ab le , see id . at 1 35 2– 53 . In o th er wo rd s, the “ in cl ud in g b utno t l im it edto ” cl au se of § 3 16 1( h) (1 ) do es no t m od ify the co nt en ts of t he enum erat edsubc at eg or ie s th em se lv es . See i d. at13 54 . W ere t ha t cl au se to ap pl y to eachof t he subc at eg or ie s, the Co urt n ot ed , itwou ld“ ren de r ev enth e cl eare stof t he subp arag rap hs in de te rm in at e an d v irtua ll y supe rfl uo us .” Id . Blo at e th us tea ch es th atif t he go ve rn in g s ub pa rag rap h d oe s n otin di cat e th atth e d el ay is ex cl ud ab le , th ena co urt m ay

no t re adth e d el ay

as f al li ng withi n § 31 61 (h )(1 )’s sc op e. Inth is way , th e Co urt re co gn iz ed“ th e il lu st rat iv e n atur e o f subs ect io n (h )(1 )’s li stof cat eg or ie s o f ex cl ud ab le de lay ,” id ., eve n a s i t “ co ns tru [ed ] each of the eig ht subp arag rap hs in(h) (1 ) to go ve rn , con cl us iv el y un le ss th e subp arag rap h i ts el f in di cat es ot he rwis e, . . . the au to m at ic ex cl ud ab il it y of t he de lay

res ul ti ng fro m

th e cat eg ory of p ro ceed in gs itad dr es se s,” i d. at13 55 . Und er thi s fr am ewo rk , th e que st io n fo r us is whet he r on e o f th e subp arag rap hs of § 31 61 (h )(1 ) ad dr es se s d el ay res ul ti ng fro m

pro ceed in gs rel at ed to pl ea n eg ot ia ti on s b etweenth e g ov ern m en t an d ade fen da nt . W e n ot e th at § 3 16 1( h) (1 )(G) (s ub pa rag rap h (G) ) au to m at ic al ly excl ud es on ly tha t “ de la y 11 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 11 of 18res ul ti ng fro m co ns id erat io n b y

th e co urt o f a p ro po se d p le a ag reem en t t o b e en te redin to by the de fen da ntan d t he att orne y forth e Gov ern m en t.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (1 )(G). “ Rea d, as itm us t b e, in th e co nt ex t o f subs ect io n (h ),” Bl oa te , 13 0 S . Ct. at13 52 , th is tex t g ov ern s t he au to m at ic ex cl ud ab il it y of d el ay s re su lt in g fro m a sp eci fic cat eg ory

of “ pr oc eed in gs co nc ern in g the de fen da nt ,” na m el y , pr oc eed in gs in vo lv in g p le a ag reem en ts . Bec au se subp arag rap h (G) ad dr es se s the au to m at ic ex cl ud ab il it y of d el ay s as so ci at edwith p le a ag reem en ts , th e que st io n o f whe th er the de la y inMr. Mat hu rin ’s cas e is au to m at ic al ly excl ud ab le is de te rm in eden ti rel y by the requi rem en ts of t ha t s ub pa rag rap h. An d i ns of ar as th e Dis tri ctCo urt was ne ve r as ke d t o re vi ew a p ro po se d p le a ag reem en t dur in g t he rel ev an t p eri od , th e go ve rn m en t d oe s n otarg ue th atth e ti m e dur in g wh ic h p le a n eg ot ia ti on s wer e co nduc te d h ere m eet s t he requi rem en ts of s ub pa rag rap h (G) . W e ag ree, an d co nc lu de th atth e g ov ern in g l im it s o f subp arag rap h (G) for ecl os e th e g ov ern m en t’s cl ai m th atth e d el ay

ari si ng fro m

pl ea n eg ot ia ti on s i n t hi s ca se is auto m at ic al ly ex cl ud ab le as “ de la y

res ul ti ng fro m

ot he r pr oc eed in gs co nc ern in g t he de fen da nt .” Of co ur se , we do no t s ay

th atde la y

res ul ti ng fro m

pl ea n eg ot ia ti on s ca n ne ve r to ll th e sp eedy -in di ctm en t cl oc k. Ra th er, we s ay on ly tha t s uc h d el ay

do es no t au to m at ic al ly tol l the th irt y -d ay pe rio d. Itis cle ar Co ng res s s pe ci fic al ly 12 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 12 of 18co nt em

pl at edth e p os si bi li ty tha t o ne or b ot h p art ie s, fo r rea so ns no t l is te d i n t he Act, m ig htne edm or e th anth irt y da y s b efo re an in fo rm at io n o r in di ctm en t co ul d be fil ed . For t ho se cas es , itest ab li sh eda sp eci fic pro cedur e b y whi cha co urt wou ldha ve to ap pr ov e th e d el ay ba se d o n o n- th e-re co rd“ fin di ng s t ha t the en ds of jus ti ce s erv edby tak in g s uc h [ade la y ] ou twei gh th e b es t i nt eres t o f th e p ub li c an d th e d efen da ntina sp eedy tri al .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (7 )(A). Thi s en ds -o f-jus ti ce co nt in ua nc e, th e Supr em e Co urt h as no te d, “ is th e m os t o pe n- en de d t y pe of ex cl us io n re co gn iz edun de r th e Act .” Zedn er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 47 U.S. 48 9, 5 08 , 12 6 S . Ct. 1 97 6, 1 99 0 (2 00 6) . Andat l eas t o ne Cir cu itha s ex pl ic it ly recog ni zed th e en ds -o f-jus ti ce ex cl us io n t o p erm itad di ti on al ti m e to co nt in ue pl ea ne go ti at io ns . See Un it edSta te s v . Fie ld s, 3 9 F .3d43 9, 4 45 (3dCir . 19 94 ). Si gn ifi can tl y , th is m etho d o f to ll in g t he sp eedy -in di ctm en t cl oc k fo r pl ea ne go ti at io ns is m or e co ns is te ntwith t he st ru ctur e an d p ur po se of t he st atut e be cau se itav oi ds crea ti ng th e k in d o f lo op ho le th atwou ldex is t und er the go ve rn m en t’s v ie w. The g ov ern m en t re ad s t he st atut e to m ean th aton ce the go ve rn m en t an d ade fen da ntag ree t o n eg ot ia te a pl ea ag reem en t, the y m ay de la y th e p ro ces s fo r as lo ng as the y wis h, wi th ou t h av in g t o g etform al co urt ap pr ov al . Bu t the Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t he pu rp os e o f th e Actis “ no t o nl y to pr ot ectde fen da nt s, b utals o t o v in di cat e th e p ub li c in te res t i n t he swi ft 13 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 13 of 18adm in is tra ti on of ju st ic e.” Bl oa te , 13 0 S . Ct. at13 56 . Bas edon th is , eve n wh ere

th e g ov ern m en t an d t he de fen da ntare wi ll in g t o wai ve th e p ro te ct io ns of t he Act, th ey typic al ly m ay

no t d o s o wi th ou t fo rm al fin di ng s fr om a co urt tha t the publ ic in te res t wo ul d b e se rv ed . See Zedne r, 54 7 U.S. at50 0– 01 , 12 6 S . Ct. at19 85 . Als o, i t i s re ve al in g t ha t wh enCo ng res s i ll us tra te d t he types of “ de la y res ul ti ng fro m

ot he r pr oc eed in gs ” th atwou ldbe au to m at ic al ly excl ud ab le un de r § 3 16 1( h) (1 ), itli st edev en ts th atus ua ll y oc cu r on ly und er the au th or it y or a t the di rect io n o f a co urt, s uc h a s d el ay res ul ti ng fro m

anin te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al , 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (1 )(C) , or d el ay att rib ut ab le to a pe rio d dur in g wh ic h a pr oc eed in g i s u nd er ad vi se m en t b y th e co urt, i d. § 31 61 (h )(1 )(H). Inco nt ras t, p le a ne go ti at io ns “ are i nf

orm al di sc us si on s b etweenth e p art ie s an d a re d ire ct ly co nt ro ll edby the pa rti es , no t the co urt.” Lu cky , 56 9 F .3dat 1 07 . For t he se reas on s, we co nc lu de th atread in g t he cat eg ory of aut om at ic al ly excl ud ab le de la y s to in cl ud e th e ti m e dur in g wh ic h p le a n eg ot ia ti on s ar e co nduc te d i s co nt rary to t he st ru ctur e an d p ur

po se of t he Act. C. Eve n i f Mr. M athu rin ’s rig ht s u nd er the Act wer e v io la te d, the go ve rn m en t arg ue s t ha t wai ve r an d e st op pe l p rin ci pl es pre cl ud e Mr. M athu rin ’s Spe edy Trial Act c la im . For i ts waiv er ar gu m en t, the go ve rn m en t ad va nc es th e n ov el th eo ry 14 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 14 of 18th at“ th e fai lu re t o ra is e a p re-i nd ic tm en t d el ay ob jecti on pri or

to th e return o f th e in di ctm en t co ns ti tu te s a wa iv er o f th atcla im .” Bu t thi s t he ory dra ws n o s up po rt fro m th e te xtof t he Act, wh os e o nl y pro vi si onad dr es si ng “ a wai ve r of th e ri gh t t o di sm is sa l u nd er thi s s ect io n” co nd it io ns th e wai ve r on th e “ [f]ail ur e o f th e de fen da ntto m ov e fo r di sm is sa l p rio r to tri al or e nt ry of apl ea o f gu il ty or no lo co nt en de re.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 31 62 (a)( 2) . As th is pro vi si on says n ot hi ng ab ou t the co ns eque nc es of ade fen da ntfai li ng to m ov e fo r di sm is sa l p rio r to th e fi li ng of t he in di ctm en t, we d ecl in e to readin to th e st atut e so m ethi ng no t the re. In st ead , we readth e st atut e to m ean whatitsays, in so far a s a d efen dantwaiv es hi s ri gh t t o di sm is sa l o nl y

when th e d efen da ntfai ls “ to m ov e fo r di sm is sa l p rio r to tri al or en try of a p le a o f gu il ty or no lo co nt en de re.” Id . As fo r es to pp el , th e g ov ern m en t p oi nt s o utth at“ de fen se co un se l en co ur ag edan d a ffi rm at iv el y so ug htth e p re-i nd ic tm en t d el ay of wh ic h h e n ow co m pl ai ns ,” in ord er t o a rg ue th at“ Mat hu rin sh ou ldno w be b arre d fr om ass ai li ng th e p ro pr ie ty of wha t h e h adearn es tl y reque st ed .” Inli gh t o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s reas on in g i n Zed ne r v. Un it edSta te s, h owe ve r, th is arg um en t al so fai ls . As we h av e sa id , Zedn er m ad e cl ear t ha t b ecau se th e Actis de si gn edto adva nc e n oton ly a defe nd an t’s i nt eres t i n asp eedy tri al , bu t al so th e p ub li c’s in te res t i n t he same, see 5 47 U.S. at 5 00 –0 1, 1 26 S. Ct. at19 85 , itdo es no t p erm it 15 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 15 of 18a d efen da ntto waiv e h is rig ht s u nd er the Act p ro sp ect iv el y , see id . at 5 02 , 12 6 S .

Ct . at 1 98 6 (“ All owi ng pro sp ect iv e wai ve rs wou ldser io us ly und erm in e th e Act be cau se th ere a re m an y

cas es . . . in whi chth e p ro se cu ti on , th e d efen se , andth e co urt wo ul d a ll be happ y

to op t o utof t he Act, t o t he de tri m en t o f th e p ub li c in te res t.”) . Zedn er fu rth er m ad e cl ear t ha t co urts sh ou ldrefra in fro m reco gn iz in g anest op pe l wh ere d oi ng so wou ldineffec t “ en ti rel y swal lo w th e Act ’s no -wai ve r po li cy .” Id . at 5 05 , 12 6 S . Ct. at19 88 . So ev enwher e a d efen da ntask s t he go ve rn m en t t o d el ay

th e tr ia l b ey on d t he ti m e p erm it te d b y th e Act , itis hi gh ly do ub tfu l tha t a f

in di ng of e st op pe l i s p ro pe r. Im po rta nt ly, th is is no t a c as e in whi chth e d efen da ntask edth e g ov ern m en t to ex ceedth e ti m e li m it s o f th e Act . Befo re the in di ctm en t was fil ed , Mr. Mat hu rin ’s cou ns el si m

pl y ask edth e g ov ern m en t fo r m or e ti m e to co ns id er a p le a of fer. Th atdo es no t equa l as ki ng th e g ov ern m en t t o e xc eedth e ti m e li m it s pe rm it te d b y

th e Act , andso itis no t “ cl earl y in co ns is te nt ” wit h the po si ti onMr. Mat hu rin no w tak es insee ki ng di sm is sa l o f th e in di ctm en t. See id . at 5 05 –0 6, 1 26 S. Ct . at 1 98 8 (h ol di ng th atearl ie r rep res en ta ti on th ata co nt in uanc e was ne ed edto ga th er ev id en ce was no t “ cl earl y in co ns is te nt ” wit h l at er ar gu m en t tha t co nt in ua nc e was no t p erm is si bl e und er the Sp eedy Trial Act) . That , intu rn , is im po rta ntbe cau se , as t he Supr em e Co urt n ot edinZedn er, a ty pi cal requi rem en t 16 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 16 of 18fo r fi nd in g e st op pe l i s t ha t “ a p arty ’s lat er p os it io n” be “ cl earl y in co ns is te ntwith it s earli er p os it io n.” Id. at50 4, 1 26 S. Ct. at19 87 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Si nc e th e p os it io n t ha t M r. Mat hu rin no w tak es is no t “ cl earl y in co ns is te nt ” wit h hi s ea rli er p os it io n, h e is no t es to pp edfro m ch al le ng in g t he ex cl ud ab il it y un de r th e Actof d el ay

res ul ti ng fro m

pl ea n eg ot ia ti on s. D. W e co nc lu de th atth e ti m e dur in g wh ic h p le a n eg ot ia ti on s wer e co nduc te d was no t au to m at ic al ly excl ud ab le fro m Mr. Ma th ur in ’s sp eedy -in di ctm en t cl oc k. Tha t b ei ng th e cas e, th e g ov ern m en t ex ceed edth e m ax im um th irt y -d ay

de la y for br in gi ng th e in di ctm en t. Un de r th e Act , th is m ean s t ha t the ch arg es inth e supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t, as ori gi na ll y setforth inth e juv en il e in fo rm at io n andlat er ci te d i n the go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n t o t ran sf er, m us t b e d is m is se d. See 1 8 U.S.C. 7 § 3 16 2( a)(1 ). Mr. Ma th ur in ’s con vi ct io ns m us t b e v acat ed . Howev er, “ we le av e it to th e Dis tri ctCo urt t o d et erm in e in th e fi rs t i ns tanc e whe th er d is m is sa l s ho ul d b e with o r witho utpre

jud ic e.” Zedne r, 54 7 U.S. at50 9, 1 26 S. Ct. at19 90 . 8 Title 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(1) ref ers to the dismissal of cha rg es conta ined in the 7 complaint that was filed a g ainst the defe ndant. We reje ct the g overnme nt’s argument that a Speedy Trial Ac t violation would result in dis missal of the indictment, but not the superseding indictment to the ext ent it contains the same c harg es. Our holdingon the Speedy Trial Ac t question render s all other issues that Mr. Mathurin 8 raises on a

ppeal moot. 17 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 17 of 18IV. CONCLUSI ON

W e REVERSE th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s d en ia l o f Mr. M athu rin ’s m ot io n t o di sm is s, VACATE hi s co nv ic ti on s, an d REMAND to th e Dis tri ctCo urt wi th in st ru ct io ns to de te rm in e whe th er d is m is sa l o f th e ch arg es sh ou ldbe with o r witho utpre

jud ic e.

18 Case: 11-13211 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 18 of 18