Defen dant–Appell antArthur Lee Martindie d onMay31 , 20 08. Wedismissed his 1 appeal a s moot and or d er edthedistrict court tovacate his indictment and ju dgment of conviction. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50186

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. I S I DRO GARZ A, J R; T I M OTEO GAR Z A; M ART HA CAT AL I NA GON Z AL EZ G A R Z A , D efen da n t s–A pp el l an t s

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas

B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , G A R Z A , a n d P R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg e: D e fe nda nt s –Appe l l ant s I s i dr o G ar z a, J r . , Ti m ot e o G ar z a, a nd M ar t ha C atal i n a G on zal ez G arza (col l ect ive ly “ D e f e nda nt s ” ) a ppe alt h ei r c on vi ct i on s f or 1 cri m es r el ati n g t o t h e em bezzl em en tof hu n dreds of

t h ou san ds of

dol l ars be l o ngi ng t o t he K i c ka po o Tr ad i t i o nalTr ibe o f Tex as (t he “ Tr ibe ” ) a nd t he Luc ky E agl e Casi no (t he “ C as i no” )

. D ef endant s ar gue t hatt he di st r i c tc our ter r ed by
suasponte t ran sferri n g t h ei r c ase f rom t h e D elR i o D iv ision of t h e W est ern D i st r i c tof

Texas t o th e W a co D ivi si on i n vi ol at i on o f Feder alR ul e o f

C r i m i nal United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 5, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50186

2 P rocedure 18. B ecau se t h e di st ri ctcourti n D elR i o p rovi ded n o reason i n g w h en i tt r ans fe r r e d Def

e nda nt s ’c as e , w e v ac at e D e fe nda nt s ’c o nvi c t i o ns a nd r e m and f ora new t r i al i n a venue det er m i ned i n ac c or dance w i t h t he di c t at es of R ul e 1 8. I . F ACT UAL AND PROC EDURAL HI S TORY I n 1 99 6, t he Tr ibe hi r ed D e fe nda ntI s i dr o G ar z a t o s e r ve i n v ar i o us
m an ageri alcapaci t i es w i t h i n t h e T ribe an d the C asi n o. Th e T rib e a lso pl aced I si dro ’ s w i fe M ar t ha an d th eir so n Ti m ot eo on t he Tribe’ s payr ol l

. The Tribe
e nt r us t e d I s i dr o w i t h the C as i no ’ s o pe r at i ng ac c o unt s a nd t he Tr ibe ’ s Cas i no Rev e nue Fund, a nd i ns t r u ct e d I s i dr o t o de po s i tt he Cas i no ’ s ne tpr o f i t s a nd
s p e n d th e fu n d s fo rth e b e n e fit o f th e T r ib e . The G o ve r nm e nta l l e ge s t hatI s i dr o us e d t he Cas i no ’ s o pe r at i ng ac c o unt f orper so nalex pendi t ure s, w hi c h i ncl uded m aki n g d on at i ons t o po l i t i c al
c am pa i gns i n o r de rt o c ur r y fav o rf o rhi s and Ti m o t e o ’ s po l i t i c al as pi r at i o ns . The G o ve r nm e ntc har ge d Def e nda nt s a nd f

o urot he r s w i t h v ar i o us o f fe ns e s r e l at i ng t o t h e m i sapp ropri ati on of t ribal f u n ds. Th e Tr ibe and t he C as i no ar e l oc at ed on a r es ervat i on i n M aver i c k C ount y, T exas. D efen d a n ts, n on e of w h om bel on gs t o t h e T ribe, res i de i n E agle P ass, T exas, t h e ci t y cl osestt o t h e T ribe’ s reservat i on . A tt h e t i m e of t h e t ri al , every D ef endantl ived i n E agl e P as s, m any of the def ens e w i t nes se s r es i ded on ornear t he r e s e r v a t i o n, a ndm o s to f De fe nd a nt s ’o r i g i na lc o un s e lh a d t he i rp r i nc i pal pl ac e s o f

b us i ne s s i n, o rne ar , Eagl e P ass. A l lof t he e ve nt s l e ad i ng t o t he in d ic tm e n ts o c c u r r e d in E a g le P a s s , o n th e re s e r v a tio n , o rin th e C a s in o . Aj u dg e i n the D elR i o D ivi si on of the W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas (t h e “ D el R i o J udge” ) or i gi nal l y pr es i ded o verD ef endant s’ c as e. D ef

endant s al l ege d t hat t h e D elR i o Ju dg e ha d p ol i t i cal t i es t o a potenti aldefen se w i t n ess, an d ba sed on th a t a ll e g a tion , Is id ro fi led a “M o tion to T ra n sfe r, orA lter n a tiv e ly, to D isq u a li fy and f orH ear i ng. ” I si dro as ked t he D elR i o J u d ge t o t r ansf ert he c as e t o San A n to n i o b e c a u s e a ju d g e in th a t c ity(th e “S a n A n to n io J u d g e ”) h a d p r e v io u s lyN o. 08- 50186

3 h eard a civil m a tte r i n volvi n g sub st an t i al l y t h e sam e parti es and i ssues. Ti m o t e o , M ar t ha, a nd t he o t he rde fe nda nt s m o ve d t o j o i n I s i dr o ’ s m o t i o n. The D e lRi o Jud ge s i m ul t ane o us l y gr ant e d D e fe nda nt s ’ m o t i o n t o j o i n a nd den i ed th e j oi n tm ot i on t o t ran sfer. Af ew m on t h s l ater , D efen da n t s r en ew ed t hei rar gum ent s f

ort he D elR i o J udge’ s di sq ual i fi cat i on. The D elR i o J udge cond u ct e d a n i n c am e r a h eari n g an d then ordered D efen da n t s t o f i l e an ot h er
m ot i on t o di squ al i f

y w i t h i n t w en t y- f

ou r hou rs. D e fe nda nt s t i m e l y f i l e d t he m o t i o n t o di s qua l i f y. Bef ore ruli ng o n a ny
m ot i on s, the D elR i o Ju dg e suasponte i ss ued an o r de r t r ans fe r r i ng t he c as e a nd al l p e n d i n g m o t i o n s t o t h e Ch i e f J u d g e f o r t h e W e s t e r n Di s t r i c t o f Te xa s , w ho si t s over t h ree hu n dred m i l es aw ay i n W aco. Th e D elR i o J u dg e d i d n otru l e on t he m o t i o n t o d i s q u a l i f y , a n d h e r o r d e r g a v e n o r e a s o n f o r t h e t r a n s fe r . The C h ie f J u d g e , suasponte andw i t ho uta he ar i ng, a c c e pte d t he t r ans fe ra nd
o r de r e d t hatt he t r i alw ou l d be he l d i n W ac o . I n r e s po ns e , D e fe nda nt s f i l e d a
m o tio n to re -tr a n s fe rth e irca s e e ith e rb a c k to D e l R io o rto S a n A n to n io

. T h e C h i ef

Ju dg e co n du ct ed a h eari n g on D efen da n t s’m ot i on , an d ask ed
w hy t he y r e que s t e d a t r ans fe r ba c k t o D e l Ri o af t e r t he y had s o ugh tt o m o ve t he
ca se t o San A nt oni o. D ef endant s r es ponded t hatt hei rs ol e c onc er n w as di squ al i f

i cat i on of

t h e D el R i o Ju dg e based on her al l eged bi as. D efen da n t s t h en a rg u ed tha t ne i th er th ey , n or th eir w i tn ess es, n or th eir cou n sel cou l d aff ord to tr a v e l to W a c o fo rth e tr ia l. T h e C h ief J u dg e den i ed the m ot i on t o re- t ran sfer, noti n g t h at t h e W aco D ivi si on “ i s a one court di vi si on an d i ti s a busy d ivi sion ,” a n d t h at as C h i ef J u d g e , m o v in gth e tr ia l to D e l R io w o u ld b r in g “g r e a t h a r d s h ip o n m e p e r s o n a lly and on t he w or k of t hi s C our tand t hi s di st r i c t
. ” The C hi ef Judge al l ow ed s eve r al
a tt o r n e y s to w ith d r a w fr o m re p r e s e n t i n gD e fe n d a n ts o n g r o u n d s o f e c o n o m ic har ds hi p due t o t he t r ans fe r , a nd a ppo i nt e d r e pl ac e m e ntc o uns e l

. To a l l o w t he
new att orn ey s th e ch a n ce to p rep a re, th e C h i ef Ju d ge gra n ted a co n ti n u a n ce thatN o. 08- 50186

4 de l ay e d t he t r i alf

o rs e ve r alm o nt hs

. Al t ho ugh t he C h i ef Judg e o f

fe r e d t he
cou rt’ s su b p oe n a po w er to a ssist D efen d a n ts in s ecu ri n g w i tn ess es, th e m aj ority
o f D e fe n d a n ts ’p r o ffe r e d d e fe n s e w itn e s s e s d id n o t t e s tify a t t r ia l. A f t er a n in e -d a y j oi n tt ri al , t h e j u ry f ou n d Isi dro an d T i m ot eo gu i l t y of
m ul t i pl e c ount s of

c ons pi r ac y t o c om m i tt he o f fen ses o f

t hef tf r om an I ndi an t ribal organ i zati on , i n vi ol ati o n o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 371, an d thef tby of f i cers or e m p l o y e e s o f

g a m i n ge s t a b l i s h m e n t s o n I n d i a n l a n d s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C. § 1 16 8. The j ur y f

o und M ar t ha andI s i dr o g ui l t y o f va r i o us ac t s o f t axe va s i o n, i n vi ol ati on of

26 U

. S

. C . § 7 2 0 1 . T h e j u ry f ou n d M art h a, I si dro, an d T i m ot eo g u i l t yo f

c o n s p i r a c yt o e v a d e t h e p a y m e n to f t a x e s , i n v i o l a t i o n of 18 U. S

. C. § 3 71
. Thi s a ppe alf o l l o w e d. I I . J URI S DI CT I ON AND S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n o v e r th e fin a l ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in th is
c r im in a l c a s e u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C

. § 3 7 4 2 (a ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d r e v i e w “ a ll q u estion s con cern i n g v en u e u n d er th e a b u se o f d i scre ti on stan d a rd

. ” Un i t ed S t a t e s v . L i

p s c o mb , 29 9 F

. 3 d 30 3 , 33 8 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 2 ). “ [A] tri a lcou rt ab u ses i ts d is c r e tio n w h e n th e ju d g e h a s co n s id e r e d th e w r o n gfa c to r s i n a p p ly in gh is di s c r e t i o n (t h e j u d g m e n tc a l lwa s mad e a s t o i s s u e s o rfa c t o r s n o twi t h i n t he scop e of h i s d i scre ti on a rypo w ers). ” Id

. a t 3 3 9 (i n te rn a l qu o ta tion om itted ). A l t h ou gh a t ri al court h as “broad di scr et i on i n deci di n g w h ere t o f i x t h e l ocat i on o f th e tr ia l,” it m u s t g iv e “‘d u e co n s id e r a tio n ’to th e fa c t o r s l is te d in R u le 1 8 .” Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ali st ri eri , 778 F

. 2 d 1 226, 1229 ( 7t h C i r . 1985) (c i t i ng Un i t ed S ta tes v. Trug lio , 7 3 1 F .2 d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 3 0 (4 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 )). III . A N A L Y S IS O n app eal , D efen da n t s argue t h at t h e D elR i o Ju dg e abu sed h er di scr et i on by suasponte tr a n s fe r r in gD e fe n d a n ts ’ca s e to W a c o w ith o u t c o n s id e r in gR u le 18. D ef endant s al so ar gue t hatt he C hi ef Judge abuse d hi s d i scre ti on by s ua spon t e ac cep ti n g t he D elR i o J udge’ s t r ansf er . Fi nal l y, D ef

endant s ar gue t hatN o. 08- 50186

Seea lso Un ited Statesv . Rea- Ta pia , 13 4 F . App’x71 1, 7 13 n.5 (5thC ir. 2 005) (per 2 curium) (unpubli shed) (notingth at a j udge “would not have b eenper mitted to e nter anyorders aft ergrantin gth e defe n dant’ s recu sal motion”) (em ph a si s a dded). 5 th e C h ief Ju dg e abu sed h i s di scr et i on by ref u si n g t o gran tt h ei r m ot i on t o ret ran sfer ei t h er back to D elR i o or t o Sa n A n t on i o. In response, t h e G overnm en t argu es t h at w e shou l d c h aract eri ze t h e D el Ri o J udg e ’ s t r ans fe ra s a re c us al , m ak i ng Rul e 18 i r r e l e va nt
. Addi t i o nal l y, t he G o ve r nm e nta r gue s t hatt he Chi e f J udg e di d notabus e hi s di s c r e t i o n by de nyi ng D ef endant s’m ot i on t o r e- t r ansf ert he c as e either bac k t o D elR i o o rt o San A n t on i o. A . Th e D elR i o Judge’ s O r der A s a t hre sho l d m at t er , w e m ustdec i de w h eth er t he D elR i o J udge t ran sferr e d Def

e nda nt s ’c as e o ri m pl i c i t l y r e c us e d he r s e l f

. Al t ho ugh t he G ove r nm entar gues t hatw e s houl d t r ea t h er or deras a r ec usalf ol l ow ed bya
r e as s i gnm e nt , t he D e lRi o J udg e de ni e d Def e nda nt s ’f

i r s tm o t i o n fo rre c us ala nd

“ or der ed t hat t he c l er k i m m ed i at el y tran sfer” t h e case. (em p h a sis a d d e d ). Addi t i o nal l y, t he Chi e f J udg e s t at e d t hat “ [ t ] hi s c as e ha s b e e n t r ansf e r r e d f rom t h e D elR i o D ivi si on , ” an d l aterden i ed D efen da n t s’m ot i on fordi squ al i f i cat i on o f t he D e lR i o J udg e b e c aus e “ [ t ] he c as e ha s b e e n t r ansf e r r e d f rom t h e dock etof th e [D e l R io J u d g e ]. T h e re for e , D e fen d a n ts’ m o tion is m o o t.” (em p h a sis a d d e d ). F u rt h er, a rec u salby the D elR i o Ju dg e w ou l d h ave ba rred her f rom i ssui n g t h e order t ran sferri n g t h e case t o t h e C h i ef Ju dg e. I ssui n g an y order af t er a r ecusal“w ou l d vi ol ate the congressi on alcom m an d that t h e di squ al i f i ed j u d ge be rem ov ed f

rom allpa rti c ip a tio n i n the cas e . . . [ a n d w ou l d ] crea te susp icion th at t h e di squ al i f i ed j u dg e w i l lsel ecta success or w h ose vi ew s are con son a n t w i th h i s [ or h ers]. ” McC u i n v. T ex. Pow er & L igh tCo. , 714 F. 2d 1255, 126 1 ( 5th C ir. 198 3)

. W e f i n d that t h e D elR i o Ju dg e suasponte t ran sferred 2N o. 08- 50186

6 D ef endant s’c as e, and di d noti m pl i c i t l y r ec use her se l f

. There f or e, R ul e 1 8 ap pl i es. T h e un i qu e procedu ralhi st ory of t h i s c ase w arran t s m ak i n g on e f u rt h er poi nt
. Al t hough D ef endant s so ught a r e- t r ansf erf r om W ac o t o D elR i o o rSan A n to n io , o r ig in a llyth e yre q u e s te d a t r a n s fe rf r o m D e l R io to S a n A n to n io

. T h is p rom pt ed t he C hi ef Judge, upon hear i ng t hei rr eques tf ora r e- t r ansf

er , to
com m en t“ [y] ou al lf ou gh t f or years t o ha ve t h i s m att er m oved t o Sa n A n t on i o. N ow yo u’ r e s ayi ng i ts houl d be i n D el R i o? ” I n r es ponse , D ef endant s ar gued t hat th e ys o u g h t t h e tr a n s fe rs o le l y t o a v o i d h a v in gth e irca s e tr ie d b yth e D e l R io J u d g e d u e to h e ra lle g e d b ia s . T h e rec ord sup ports t h i s c on t en t i on . D efen da n t s’m ot i on t o t ran sfer speci f i cal l y requ est ed that t h e D elR i o J u dg e on l y consi der t ran sferri n g t h e case t o Sa n A n to n io, because the Sa n A n t on i o Ju dg e ha d h eard a civi lm att er i nvolvi ng s ubst ant i al l y t he s am e par t i es and i ss ues . D ef endant s have dem on st rat ed that t h ei r sol e concern w as separati n g t h e D elR i o Ju dg e f rom her in v o lv e m e n t in th e irca s e . T h e D elR i o Ju dg e’ s su asp o n tetransfer and t h e C h i ef Ju dg e’ s su asp o n te
a c c e p ta n c e le ft D e fe n d a n ts w ith n o o p p o r tu n ity to ch a lle n g e th e tr a n s fe ru n til t h ey f i l ed a m ot i on t o re- t ran sfer. D efen da n t s’vi gorous att em pts t o re- t ran sfer th e irca s e f

r o m W a c o a t th e ire a r lie s t o p p o r tu n ityc o n v in c e u s t h a t th e yw o u ld h a v e o p p o s e d th e tr a n s fe re a r lie rif g iv e n th e ch a n c e . B . A buse of

D i s cr et i on D e fe nda nt s a r gue t hatt he D e lR i o Judg e a bus e d he rdi s c r e t i o n when s he
suasponte t ran sferred D efen da n t s’case f rom D el R i o t o W aco. F ederalR u l e of C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 1 8 s ta te s : U nl e s s a s t at ut e o rt h ese rul e s pe r m i to t he r w i s e , t he g o ve r nm e nt m ustpr os ec ut e a n of fens e i n a di st r i c tw her e t he o f fens e w as com m i t t ed. Th e court sha l l f i x t h e pl ace of

t ri alw i t h i n t h e di st ri ctN o. 08- 50186

E ffective December 1, 200 8, Rule 18 requires courts to consi der the convenienceof the 3 venu e toanyvicti m. B ec au seth e a me n dm ent wa s noteff ect ive at th e ti meof Defe n dants ’ trial, we applyth e prior Rule. We note , however , th at this rul e ch ange would not affect the analysis inthis ca se. 7 w i t h du e r e ga r d t o t he c o nve ni e nce of the d e fe nda nta nd t he w i t n esses an d the prom pt adm i n i st rat i on of j u st i ce. 3 A s t h e E l even t h C i rcui tha s note d , “a d i st ri ctj u dg e’ s exerc i se of di scr et i on resul t i n g i n a t ria l in a n env i ronm en tal i en t o t h e accused over a proper obj ec t i on m u st be s upport ed bya de m ons t r at i on i n t he r ec or d t hatt he j udge ga ve du e reg a rd to t h e factors n ow i n corp ora te d in R u l e 1 8
. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. Burns , 6 6 2 F .2 d 1 3 7 8 , 1 3 8 3 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). The D e l Ri o Jud ge ga ve no r e as o n f o rher suasponte t ran sfer of D efen da n t s’case f

rom D elR i o t o W aco. G iven h e r den i alof D efen da n t s’ di sq ual i f

i c at i on m ot i ons and t hei ror i gi nal m ot i on t o t r ansf ert he c as e t o San Ant o ni o , w e c an do li t t l e m o r e t han s pe c ul at e a s t o t he m o t iva t i o n f o rt he t r ansf er . The r ec or d pr ovi des no i ndi c at i on as t o w h et hert he D elR i o J udge consi dered the “c on ve n ien ce of th e [D ]efe n d a n t[s]” o r th e “p ro m p t a dm i n i st rat i on of j u sti ce.” F ED
. R. C RIM
. P. 18. O urw e i ghi ng o f

t he “ conveni e nc e o f t he [ D ] e fe nda nt [ s ] ” a ga i ns tt he “p r o m p t a d m in is tr a tio n o f ju s tic e ” a d v is e s a g a in s t tr a n s fe rt o W a c o . S ee id

. In assessi n g conven i en ce, w e consi der: ( 1) t h e di st an ce f rom t h e defen da n t ’ s hom e, L i p s c o mb , 2 9 9 F .3 d a t 3 4 0 ; D u point v . Un i t ed S t ate s , 388 F

. 2d 39, 44 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 6 7 ); (2 ) th e lo c a tio n o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s w itn e s s e s , L i p s c o mb , 299 F. 3d at340; Uni t e d S t at e s v. St anko , 528 F

. 3d 581 , 5 86 ( 8th C i r. 2 008 ) ; a n d ( 3) t h e abi l i t y of th e d e fe n d a n t’s fa m ilya n d fr ie n d s to a tt e n d th e tr ia l. St anko , 528 F. 3d at586. W e ha ve a l so a c kno w l e dg e d t hatt he b ur de n o n a de fe nda nti nc r e as e s w he n a t ran sfer f

orces t h e defen da n t ’ s c ou n selt o try a case far fr om h i s or h er pract i ce. S e eL i p s c o mb , 2 9 9 F .3 d a t 3 4 0 (n o t in gth e lo c a t io n o f t h e d e fe n s e a t t o r n e y ’s p ra ctice w h e n co n sid e rin gco n v e n ien ce ).N o. 08- 50186

8 D e fe n d a n t s , t h e i rwi t n e s s e s , a n d t h e i rc o u n s e la l lr e s i d e i n o ra r o und E agle P ass ort h e T rib e ’ s reservati on . Th e t ran sfer t o W aco requi red every i nt e r e s t e d pa r t y t o t r av e l m o r e t han t hr e e hundr e d m i l e s t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n t he t ri al

. A dd i t i on al l y, t h e transfer requ i red defense c ou n sel

— t h ose w h o chose not t o w i t hdr aw due t o f i nanc i alh ardsh i p s t e m m i ng f r o m t he t r ans fe r— t o ho l d a
m u l t i pl e- da y t ri alfar f rom theirpract i ces. A l t h ou gh t h e C h i ef Ju dg e app oi n t ed D efen da n t s new coun sel , t h e ori gi n alatt orneys i n vest ed su bstanti alt i m e,
m on ey, an d en ergy i n craf t i n g t h ei r d efen se. D u pl i cat i n g t h ese ef f ort s i n creased t h e bu rden on D efen da n t s. W e rarel y see a case i n w h i ch the conven i en ce fact or
w ei gh s s o hea vi l y aga i n stt ran sf er. I n c o nt r as t , t hi s t r ans fe rdo e s no tc l e ar l y be nef i t“ t he pr o m pt
a d m i n i stration of j u stic e.” F ED
. R. C RIM
. P . 1 8 . W e h a v e h e ld th a tR u le 1 8 ’s

“ second text u alfact or— ‘ du e regard t o . . . t h e p ro m p tadm i n i st rat i on of j ust i c e’

— i s i n parta l i t er alc om m and t hatt r i al s c om pl y w i t h t he SpeedyTri al A ct. ” L i p s c o mb , 299 F. 3d at 341 (i nt er nal c i t at i on om i t t ed)

. C our t s m ust“ w ei gh t he i m pa c t t he t r i al l o c at i o n w i l l hav e o n t he t i m e l y di s po s i t i o n o f t h e i ns t ant
ca se.” I n reCh ess on , 897 F

. 2d 156 , 159 ( 5th C i r. 199 0) (per curi am )

. Th i s fact or

“ in c lu d e s m o r e th a n th e c a s e a tb a r ; t h e p h r a s e in c lu d e s th e s t a t e o f th e c o u r t ’s d ock et ge n era l l y.” I

d. T h e t ran sfer of

t h i s c ase, parti cul ar ly t h e l oss of D efen da n t s’chosen
coun sel , res u l t ed i n substanti al del ay. T h e D el R i o Ju dg e t ran sferred t h e case f rom D elR i o on M ay 2, 2 006 , b u tthe t ri ali n W aco di d n otbegi n un t i lO ct ober 1, 200 7. The l e ngt hy c o nt i nuan c e t hatt he Chi e f J udg e g r ant e d a f

t e ra ppo i nt i ng
r e pl ac e m e nt de fe ns e c o uns e lc aus e d t hi s de l ay , a nd we f i nd n o t hi ng s ugg e s t i ng th a t a tri a li n D el R i o w o u ld h a v e res u l ted i n a sim i l a r p ostp on em en t. Addi t i o nal l y, no t hi ng i n t he r e c o r d s ugg e s t s t hatdoc ke tc o nc e r ns pr o m pt e d t he t ran sfe r f

r o m D e l Ri o t o W ac o . Al t ho ugh t he Chi e f Jud ge as s e r t e d t hatre-N o. 08- 50186

9 t r ansf erf r om W aco w ou l d di sr upthi s doc ket , t he r ec or d doe s nots ugges tt hat t h e D elR i o Ju dg e consi dered h er ow n docket bef ore or deri n g t h e t ran sfer. I n L i p s c o mb , t he di st r i c tc our tor der ed a suasponte t r ansf erf r om D al l as t o Am ar i l l o b as ed o n t he di st r i c tc ou rt’ s c onc er n ove rpr et r i alpubl i c i t y t hat
w o u ld a c c o m p a n y “t h e tr ia l o f o n e o f th e b e s t[- ]k n o w n s itt in g e le c te d o ffic ia ls in t he D al l as / FortW or t h m et r opl ex f oral l egat i ons of

publ i c c or r upt i on. ” 299 F. 3d at3 37 ( al t e r at i o n i n o r i gi nal)

. Af t e r c o nduc t i ng an i nde pe nde nta nal ys i s o f t he d i stri ct cou rt’ s tran sfer ord er a n d fi n d i n g th a t th e “fa cts of con ve n i en ce m i l i tate
exc l usivel y aga in st t r ansf er , ” w e c oul d “ det ec t vi r t ual l y not hi ng on t he R ul e 1 8
sca l e to cou n terb a l a n ce th e d efen d a n t’ s esta b l i sh ed i n con ve n i en ce.” Id

. at348. G iven t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s fai l ure t o c ons i dert he fac t or s enum er at ed i n R ul e 1 8,
w e h a d n o c h o ic e b u tto fi n d a n a b u s e o f d is c r e t io n a n d v a c a t e th e d e fe n d a n t ’s
c o n v ic tio n . S ee id . a t 3 4 8

– 4 9
. Li psc om b bi nds ouranal ys i s i n t hi s ca s e . I n L i p s c o mb , t h e di st ri ctcourt p rov i d ed a th oro u gh an d rea son ed ord er, b u t fa i l ed to give du e con sider a ti on to th e a p p r o p r ia te fa c to r s . S ee id

. I n t hi s c as e, h ow ev er, t he D elR i o J udge has provi ded no rati on al e t h at w ou l d all ow us t o condu ctt h e t yp e of revi ew
n ece ssa ry to a ff

i rm su c h a n i n con ve n i en t suasponte tr a n s fe r . B e c a u s e o f th is l ack of reasoni n g, w e h ave n o ch oi ce bu tto fi n d t h at the D elR i o Ju dg e abu sed h e rd is c r e tio n , a n d to v a c a te D e fe n d a n ts ’co n v ic tio n s . I V . C ONC L US I ON A tt h e tim e o f t h e Li psc om b de c i s i o n, w e de s c r ibe d t hatc as e a s a “ t r ue ou tl i er i n th e R u l e 18 j u ri sp ru d en ce.” Id

. T h e ci rcum st an ces of t h e i n st an tcase
s u g g e s t t h a t itto o fa lls o u ts id e th e re a lm o f R u le 1 8 n o r m a lc y . O u r h o ld in gis lim ite d to th e ra r e in s ta n c e s w h e r e th e d is tr ic t ju d g e o r d e r s a tr a n s fe r , s ua sp o n tean d ov er a d efen d a n t’ s ob j ection , an d fa i l s to give d u e con sider a ti on to R u l e 18 w h en t h ose fact ors overw h el m in gl y ad vi se agai n stt ran sfer.N o. 08- 50186

Defen dant s al so argu ed that thedistrict courtimproperlyexclu ded evi denceth at the 4 Tra ditio nalC ouncil of the Tribeauthoriz ed someof the expenditure s that l ed toth eir co nviction s. I nlight of th e re man d, wenee d nota ddre ss thisargu me nt.

10 Acc o r di ngly, w e v ac at e D e fe nda nt s ’c o nvi c t i o ns a nd r e m and f o r a ne w t r i al i n a venue de t er m i ned i n ac c or dance w i t h R ul e 1 8. 4 VA CA T ED a n d R EMANDE D.