Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40731
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. T U R N E R C O R N E L L MO O N E Y H A M D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- c r - 00001
B e fo r e B E N AV ID E S , S T E W A R T , a n dS O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * A ppel l ant Tu r ner C or nel l M oo neyham (M oo neyham ) pl eade d gui l t y t o e i ght f i r e ar m c o unt s , r e s e r vi ng hi s r i ghtt o a ppe alaSpe e dyTr i alAc tc l ai m . The di st ri ctcourti m posed a 220

- m on t h sentence an d a l i fe- t erm of sup e rv ised
r e le a s e . O n a p p e a l, M o o n e y h a m a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t co u r t e r r e din d e n y in gh is
m ot i on t o di sm i ss t h e i n di ct m en tun der t h e Sp eedyT ri alA ct. 18 U
. S
. C
. §§ 3 1 6 1 (c)(1 ) etse q . ( 2000)
. Th e r equi r em ent at i ss ue pro vi des , i n r el evant par t , as United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April29, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40731 Document: 00511095896 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2010N o. 09- 40731

2 f o l l o w s : “Any i nf

o r m at i o n o rin di c t m e ntc har gi ng an i ndivi dua lw i t h t he com m i ssi on of

an of fen se s h al lb e fil ed w i t h i n t h i rt y da ys f rom t h e date on w h i ch such i n divi du alw as arres t ed or served w i t h a su m m on s i n conn ect i on w i t h such ch a rg es.” 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 1 6 1 (b). F a i l u re to com p l y w i th this req u i rem en t resu l ts in d is m is s a l o f th e ch a r g e s . § 3 1 6 2 (a )(1 ). M oon eyh am contends tha tbecau se t h e f ederalan d st ate authori t i es col l u ded t o keep hi m i n st ate c u st odyf or t h e prosecuti on of t h e i n st an tof

fen ses, th e st at e ar r es t t r i gge r ed t he 30- day t i m e per i od f or t he fede r al gr and j u ryto i n di cthi m i n t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas. T h i s C ou rt h as h el d that an a rres t m a d e b y sta te l a w en forcem en t of fi cers — ev en if

t h e y a re co op era ti n g w i th f ed e ra l au th o rities

— d o e s n o t trig g e r th e ru n n in gof th e 3 0 -d ay ti m e peri od u n der § 3 1 6 1 (b ). S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ch a rles , 8 8 3 F .3d 3 5 5 , 3 5 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). In d ee d , M oo n ey h a m a ck n ow l ed ge s th a t th e plain l a n gu a ge of th e s ta tu te dem ons t r at es t hata s tate arr es tdoe s nott r i gge rt he r unn i ng of t he 30- day p e r io d
. As M o o ne yha m a s s e r t s , ho w e ve r , t he r e has be e n an ex c e pt i o n ca r ve d o ut o f t hi s r ul e . I n Uni t e d St at e s v . Ce pe da- Luna , 9 8 9 F .2d 3 5 3 , 3 5 7 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ), th e N in th C ir c u it h e ldth a t t h e “S p e e d yT r ia l A c t c a n b e a p p lie dto civ il det ent i ons w hi c h ar e m er e r use s t o det ai n a def endant f

or l a ter cri m i nal p r o s e c u tio n .” T h e C o u r t e x p la in e dth a t “ th e a r r e s t m u s ta l s o h a v e b e e n ‘ in
con n ection w i th ’the ch a rg es co n tain ed w i th i n the l a ter i n d i ctm en t. ” Id
. at356 (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). T h e C o u r t fu r th e r e x p la in e d th a t th e S p e e d y T r ia l A c t “ w o u ld l ose allm ea n i n g if

fed era lcri m i n a lau th oriti es cou l d coll u d e w i th civilor state of f i ci al s t o ha ve t h ose authori t i es det ai n a defen da n tpen di n g federalcharges
s o le lyfo rth e p u r p o s e o f b y p a s s in gth e re q u ir e m e n ts o f th e S p e e d yT r ia l A c t.” Id . a t 3 5 7
. T h i s C ou rtha s a greed w i t h t h e N i n t h C i rcui t , opi n i n g t h at t h e “ ‘ ruse excepti on ’[i s] an ef

fect ive w ay of protec t i n g aga i n st t h e possibi l i t y of col l u si on Case: 09-40731 Document: 00511095896 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2010N o. 09- 40731

3 b etw ee n fed era lcr i m i n a la u th oriti es a n dcivilo r state offi ci a l s. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. D e L a Pena - Ju arez , 214 F. 3d 594, 598 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) (c i t i ng Cep e da- Luna, 989 F
. 2d a t3 56 )
. N o ne t he l e s s , t hi s Cour tw i l lno ta pply t he “ r us e e xc e pt i o n” unl e s s adefen da n th as s ho w n t hatt he pr i m ar y o re xc l us ive pur po s e o f t he d e te n tio n w a s to h o ld h im fo rth e fe d e r a l cr im in a l p r o c e e d in g s . Id
. Acc or di ngl y, t h e defen da n tb ears the bu rden of proof w h en cl ai m i n g t h at t h e ruse excepti on ap pl i e s t o hi s c as e . Thi s C o ur tre vi e w s t he fac t ualf i ndi ngs s upp o r t i ng a Spe e dy T r ia l A c t ru lin gfo rcle a re r r o ra n dth e le g a l co n c lu s io n s d e n o v o . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Parker , 5 0 5 F .3 d3 2 3 , 3 2 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). H ere, t h e di st ri ctcourthel d an evi den t i ary h eari n g t o deter m i n e w h et h er t h e f ederalau t h ori t i es had co ll u ded w i t h t h e st ate authori t i es f or t h e pri m ary orex c l usive purpos e o f det ai ni ng M oo neyha m f ort he i nst antfede r alc r i m i nal proceed in g s. T h e di st ri ctcourtf ou n d that t h ere had been no su ch col l u si on w ar r ant i ng di s m i s s alo f t he c har ge s a nd d e ni e d t he m o t i o n t o di s m i s s . The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f

i ndi ng i s s upp o r t e d b y t he r e c o r d a nd i s no tc l e ar l y e rroneou s. T h ere fore, w e w i l ln ot d i stu rb i t.

T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-40731 Document: 00511095896 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/29/2010