NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0550n.06 No. 09-3453 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, Plaintif f-Appellee , v. THOM AS B AL LA TO, Defendant-

Appellant
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: KEITH , C OLE, and G IBBO NS, Ci r c uitJudg e s. COLE, Circuit Jud ge. Def endant- Appellant Thomas Ba llato ple aded g uilty to one count of possession of child pornog raphy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a )(4) (B ) and (b)( 2). He now appea ls the district court’s decision denying his motion to dismiss the i ndictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Ac t, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq . We VA CA TE t h e district court’s de nial of B allato’s motion to di smiss and REMAND to the district court for proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. I. BACKG ROUND On September

26, 2006, a cr iminal complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Souther

n District of Ohio, char g ing Ba llato w ith rece ipt of child pornog raphy , in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 2 25 2A (a )( 2) and (b )( 1) . A ft e r h is a

rr e st, B a llato o bta ine d b on d a nd wa ive d h is preliminary

hear ing, r esulting in the bi nd-over of his case to the g rand jury . Ba llato then waived the time in whic h a timely

indictment had to be filed up a nd until November 27, 2006. The Gover nmentNo. 09-3453

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Th om as Ba lla to

- 2 - and B allato next filed a succe ssful joint m otion to extend the t ime to indict until Dec ember 27, 2006. On No ve mbe r 2 8, 20 06 , at th e reque st o f p re tr ia l se rv ic e s, the ma g ist rate jud g e iss ue d o rd e rs to sh owc a us e a s to why

the c ourt sh ou ld n ot r e vo ke B a llato’ s b on d f or purp or te d v iol a tio ns of

his te rm s o f r e l e a s e . I n p art i c u l ar , p r e t r i a l s e r v i c e s a l l e g e d t h a t B a l l a t o h a d v i o l a t e d t h e t e r m s o f h is elec tronic monitoring—a condition of rele ase ma

ndated by the Adam Walsh Act (“ AWA”). See 18 U. S
. C
. § 3 1 4 2 (c )( 1 )( B)
. Af t e r c o n d u ct i n g an i n i t i al h ea ri n g o nt h e m at t er , t h e m agi s t ra t e j u d ge continued the pr ocee dings on the order s to show cause u ntil Decembe r 14, 2006. Howe ver, unbeknownst to the mag istrate judg e, on De cembe r 13, 2006, the g rand jury indicted B allato on one count of re ceipt of c hild pornog raphy
. The magistrate judg e re commence d the show-c ause he aring
on De c e mbe r 1 4, 20 06 . A t th e clo se of the he ari ng , th e ma g istra te jud g e ins tr

uc te d th e pa

rt ie s to brief the cons t i tu t i o n al i t y

o f t h e A W A a n d

i t s m an d at o ry

el ec t ro n i c- m o n i t o ri n g p ro v i s i o n s . But upon le arn ingthat th e g ra

nd jur y ha d indi c te d Ba llato, the ma g istra te jud g e c on c lud e d that juri sd ic tio n in the ca se had pa ssed to the district court a nd t h er ef o re d issolved the order s to show cause . The
ma g istrate jud g e no te d, ho we ve r, that th e dis tr ic t court ha d disc re tio n to r e fe r t he matte r b a c k to him for a decision. I n an appa

rent response to this order , the district c ourt ref err ed the bond matter ba ck to the mag istrate judg e. The mag istrate judg e initially interpre ted the re fer ral a s a mandate to reinstate a nd resolve the previously

issued show-ca

u s e o rd er conce rning Ba llato’s alleg ed bond violations and ins tr uc te d th e pa

rt ie s to brie f the iss ue . Th e Go ve rnme nt fi le d its bri e f on Janu ary 5, 20 07 ; B a llato fi le d hi s on J anuar

y 22 , 2 00 7. On

the same da

y , B a llato a lso fi le d a

mot ion to s tr ike c e rt a in conditions of his bond, including the te rms that prohibited his contact with minors. On Februa ry 7,No. 09-3453

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Th om as Ba lla to

- 3 - 20 07 , th e ma g istrate jud g e iss ue d a re po rt to t he dis tr ic t c ourt con cludin gthat he ha d n oth ingto resolve be cause the re fer

ral orde r had r efe renc ed a non-existent motion to revoke bond. I n addition, the re fer ral orde r did n o t au t h o rize the mag istrate judg e to re solve Ba llato’s new motion to strike bo nd c on dit ion s. I n the meantime, on January 29, 2007, Ba llato filed a motion to suppress evidenc e. On Marc h 2 , 2 00 7, the dis tr ic t c ourt c on du c te d a supp re ssi on he ari ng and e sta bli sh e d a br ie fi ngsc he du le on the m atter. Consist ent with the district court’s or der, B allato filed his final brie f on this issue on May 3, 2007. Whil e aw aiting a

ruling on the suppression motion, the parties filed va rious pleading s. On J une 6, 2007, for

instance, the Gover

nment filed a motion for a status confe renc e. The court g rante d the motion and initially

set th e m at t er fo r h earing on J uly 5, 2007. For

his part, B allato filed a motion for supervised vi sitation with his son or m odification of his bond on J une 25, 2007. A week late r, on July 3, 20 07 , the min or ’s mot he r fi le d a motio n to inte rv e ne and op po se B a llato’ s r e qu e st fo r v isi tatio n. Whe n th e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d th e mot

he r l e a ve to f

ile he r o pp os iti on , B a llato responde d on J uly

9, 2007, in support of his orig inal brief. Whil e these motions were pe nding, B allato appe are d befor e the distri ct cour t on J uly 27, 2 0 0 7 , an d w a i v e d t i m e u n d e r

t h e S p e e dy

T r i a l A c t( “ t h e A c t ” ) t h r o u g h S e p t e mb e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 7
. In continuing the trial date, the district court made a factual finding that the e nds of justice outweig hed the int e re sts of

the de fe nd ant a

nd the pu bli c in h old inga

sp e e dy tr ia l. T h e n , o nS e p t e mb e r

1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e g r an d

j u r y r e tu r n e d a s u p e r s e d i n g i n d i c t m e n ta g a ins t Ba llato, adding a sec ond count—possession of child p o rn o gra p h y in violation of 18 U.S.C. §No. 09-3453

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Th om as Ba lla to

- 4 - 22 52 A( a )( 4) (b ) a

nd (b )( 2)
. Th e fo llo wi ng we e k, on Se pte mbe r 24, 20 07 , B a llato f ile d a mot ion to work a nd seek e mploy

ment; the district court did not rule on th e m o tion until November 6, 2007. Next, on S eptember 24, 2007, the district court a rra igne d Ba llato on the superse ding indictment a nd
ma de ano the r e nd s- of

-j us tic e fi nd ing , c on tin

uin g the tr ia l date an a dd iti on a l th ir ty da y s. Be fore the thirty

day s expi red, on O ctober 12, 2007, Bal l at o fi l ed a motion to dism iss the superse ding indictment f

or alleg ed violations of the Speedy Trial Act. Whil e brie fing on this mot ion
wa s in pro c e ss, B a llato h ir e d n e w c ouns e l and , o n Jan ua ry 7, 20 08 , a g a in a sk e d th e dis tr ic t c ourt to waive time unde r the Ac t until April 14, 2008. The dist rict court once more found that the e nds of justice outweig hed the inter ests of the de fenda nt a nd the public in speedy

trial, there by

tolling the sp e e dy -t ri a l c loc k un ti l Apr il 1 4, 20 08 . T he n, on F e br ua ry 5, 20 08 , B a llato f

ile d h is f ina l br ie f i n support of his motion to dismiss for Speedy Trial Act violations. On April 8, 2008, the district cour t conclude d that only thirteen day s had ex pired from the date of t he orig inal indictment for purpose s of the spee dy -trial cloc k and denie d the motion. Pur su ant t o a

ple a a g re e me nt, B a llato ple a de d g uil ty on De c e mbe r 5, 20 08
. Th e pa rt ie s a lso ag ree d, pursuant to Rule 11(a) (2) of the Fe dera l Rules of Criminal P roce dure, that Ba llato reser ved the rig ht to a

ppeal the issue of the adver se dete rmination on his moti on to dismi ss for Speedy Trial Ac t vio latio ns . On Ap ri l 15 , 20 09 , the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc e d B a llato to fo rt y -e ig ht m on ths’ imprisonment, supervised re lease for life , one hundre d hours of community service , and a $100
a sse ssm e nt. Ba llato timely

appea led.No. 09-3453

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Th om as Ba lla to

- 5 - II. AN AL YSI S The Spee dy

Trial Ac t require s that a defe ndant’s trial beg in w ithin seve nty day s of the filing
o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t o r ar

r a i g n m e n t , w h i c h e v e r i s l a t e r . 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 1 6 1 ( c ) ( 1 )
. H o w e v e r , t h e s e v e n t yda y ru le is su

bje c t to e xclu da

ble pe ri od s o f d e lay

fo r c on sid e ratio n o f m oti on s, pr e tr ia l pr oc e e din g s, competenc y

examinations, and other proc edura l matters. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h). B o th the Gover

nment
an d B a ll a to a g r e e th a t t

h e Sp e e dy

T r ia l c lo c k

r an f r o m Jun e 4 , 2 0 0 7 , u n ti l Jun e 6 , 2 0 0 7 , an d f rom J une 14, 2007, until J une 25, 2007, for a total of thirteen da y s. They also ag ree that the clock w as stopped at diffe rent points, including: January 22, 2007 to J une 3, 2007 (B allato’s motion to strike bond conditions and mot ion to suppress); J une 6, 2007 to J une 14, 2007 (G overnme nt’s motion for status confe renc e); a

nd J uly 27, 2007 to October

12, 2007 (ends- of-justice c ontinuance) . At issue he r e is w h e th e r

tw o p e r io d s o f

d e la y
— D e c e mb e r

1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , thr o u g h Janu ar y 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 ( th irty -nine day s), and J une 25, 2007, throug h J uly 25, 2007 (thirty day s)—ar e ex cludable from the seve nty -day tim e lim it. I n revie wing the dispute d p er iods, the district court re lied, in part, on 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)( 1)(D) (for

merl y 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)( F) ) to toll the speedy -trial cloc k. Section 3161(h)( 1)(D) provides that “dela y resulting from any pretria l motion” is “ excluded in computing the tim e wi thi n w hic h .
. . the tr ia l of any su c h of

fe ns e mus t c omm e nc e .” We re c e ntl y ana ly zed thi s po rt ion of the statut e inUn ite d S

tates v . Ti nk

le nb e rg , 579 F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2009). I n that case , the Gover nment relied on the pretria l-motion ex ception to ar gu e that it s motion t o take a video deposition of a witness and its motion to bring two guns into the cour troom as evidenc e tolled the speedy -trial cloc k. I n consideringthe ar g ument, we first looked to the lang uag e of the Act. Id. atNo. 09-3453

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Th om as Ba lla to

- 6 - 597. We noted that the word “ delay” appear s in § 3161(h)( 1)(D) and it s two pref atory clause s three differ ent times, and the statute twice states that the dela y must “result from” the pretria l motion. Id. at 598. B eca

use of this lang uag e, we conclude d that “[t] here is no conce ivable wa y to rea d [t he
s t at u t e] other than to re quire a delay to re su lt f r o m an y p r e t r i a l m o t i o nb e f

o r e e xc l u d a

b l e t i me
occur s.” Id. We c onsequently found that “[e]x cluding time f or mundane pretria l motions,” such a s the Go ve rnme nt’ s mo tio ns to d e po se a wi tne ss by vide o a

nd to a llo w gun s in to t

he c ourt ro om, “would fr ustrate the pur

pose of the Spee dy

Trial Ac t.” Id. at 599. Since our de cision, district courts computing time under the Speedy Trial Ac t have a

pplied Tin k le nb e rg and inquired a s to whether a motion actually

cause s delay

befor e excluding time. See, e.g. , United States v. Siler , N o. 3:1 0- CR- 71 , 20 10 U. S. Di st. L EX I S 76 33 3, a t *2 (E .D . T e nn . July 28 , 2 01 0) (“ Th e Court

fi nd s th a t th e De fe nd ant’ s su pp re ssi on mot ion is o f s uc h a natur e that th e tim e
re qu ir e d to de te rm ine the iss ue c re a te s e xclu da ble tim e .” ); United States v. J ohnson , No. 09-20264, 2010 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 20473, at *17 (E.D. Mich. Mar ch 8, 2010) ( “[Counsel’s] motion to wit hdraw , there fore , constituted a motion that delay ed trial or ha d the potential to delay trial under United St ate s v . Ti nk le nb e rg . ” (c itatio n o mitte d) ); United States v. Sutton , N o. 3:0 9- CR- 13 9, 20 09 U. S. D ist
. L EXI S 119436, at *2 (E.D. Te nn. Dec . 22, 2009) (finding that defenda nt’s pretria l motions “[were ] of such a nature that the time requir ed t o deter mine the issues cre ates e x cludable time” ); United States v. Je rdine , No. 1: 08 CR 00481, 2009 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 117919, at *13 (N.D. Ohio Dec . 18, 20 09 ) ( fi nd ingtha

t de fe nd ant’ s mo tio ns we re “ c omp le x in natur e and that the tim e re qu ir e d to ru le upon these motions cause s a dela y of the trial a

nd, thus, crea

te[d] excludable time”).No. 09-3453

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Th om as Ba lla to

- 7 - Her e, howe ver, be cause the district court issued its opinion befor e we decide d Tin k le nb e rg , the cour t did not consider whethe r the various motions would delay trial. Be cause the district court is in the be st position to make this de termination, we rema nd to the district c ourt with instructions t o ap p l y Tin k

le nb e rg and dete rmine whe ther the motions at issue ac tually cause d delay

or the expectation of a de lay
. Cf. C o vi ello v. United States , 287 F. App’ x 503, 505 (6th Cir. 2008) (vac ating and re mandi n g t o the district court for fac tual finding s reg ardingspeedy -trial cloc k calc ulations). III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons expressed a

bove, we VA CA TE and REMAND to t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.