IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROBERT E. HAINES, JR., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 2:12-CR-191 

JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

Magistrate Judge Norah M. King 

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Robert Haines, Jr.'s ("Defendant" or 

"Haines") Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-5 of the Indictment as untimely in view of the Statute of 

Limitations, (Doc. 33). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A Federal Grand Jury issued its 6-count indictment against Haines on September 18, 

2012. (Doc. 12.) Count 1 alleges a conspiracy to commit bank fraud from October 2004 through 

2006, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Counts 2 through 4 allege bank fraud relating to real 

estate transactions occurring on November 2006 and May 2007, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. 

Count 5 alleges that Defendant failed to file a federal income tax return for 2006, in violation of 

26 U.S.C. § 7203. Count 6 alleges that Defendant failed to file a federal income tax return for 

2007, in violation of26 U.S.C. § 7203. Defendant now moves to dismiss counts 1-5 ofthe 

indictment as untimely pursuant to the applicable statutes oflimitations. 

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS 

Defendant argues Counts 1-4 are governed by the five-year statute of limitations for noncapital offenses set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3282, and therefore Haines 2012 indictment was not 

Case: 2:12-cr-00191-ALM-NMK Doc #: 57 Filed: 06/20/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
timely on those counts. By its plain language, however, § 3282 is not applicable where an 

alternative time limitation is "otherwise expressly provided by law." 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). The 

statute oflimitations for financial institution offences is governed by 18 U.S.C § 3293, which 

provides that an indictment must be returned "within 10 years after the commission of the 

offence." Section 3293 applies both to violations of and conspiracies to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1344 

(bank fraud). Count 1 (alleging conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1344, in violation of§ 1349) 

and Counts 2-4 (alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1344) are therefore all subject to a ten-year 

statute oflimitations, and were timely filed. 

Defendant also argues that the indictment on Count 5 (willful failure to file a federal 

income tax return for 2006) was not timely, because it was not returned within the six year 

period set forth by 26 U.S.C. § 6531. The statute oflimitations, however, is computed from the 

due date of the return, which, in the case of the 2006 tax year, was April17, 2007. Therefore, 

the latest the indictment on Count 5 could have been returned was April17, 2013. Because the 

indictment was handed down on September 18, 2012, Count 5, too, was timely. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-5 in light of 

applicable statutes of limitations is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

sf Algenon L. Marbley 

Algenon L. Marbley 

United States District Judge 

Dated: June 20, 2013 

2 

Case: 2:12-cr-00191-ALM-NMK Doc #: 57 Filed: 06/20/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>