FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14314 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 2 0 3 3 4 - C R - P AS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s T R U J I L L O D A R V I L L E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l9, 2008) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntT ruj i l l o D a rvi l l e appe a l s the de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the2

i ndi c tm e nt , of

w hi c h he now s t a nds c onvi c t e d, c ha r gi ng hi m w i th c ons pi r a c y a nd a tt e m ptt o i m por ta nd pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 6, 96 3. D arvi l l e had pl ed gu i l ty a nd been se nt ence d for a s ubs t a nt i ve c oc a i ne c ha r ge a r i s i ng outof a n of f e ns e i nvol vi ng the i m por t a t i on of coca i ne i n M ar ch 20 06 . T he i nst antconspi ra cyand att em ptchar ges a rose ou tof a pr i orof f e ns e , c om m i tt e d i n J a nua ry 2006. C i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R e e d, 980 F . 2d 15 68 (11th C i r. 19 93 ), and U ni t ed S t at es v. B ol di n, 77 2 F . 2d 71 9 (11 th C i r. 19 85 ), D a rvi l l e a r gue s on appe a l tha t , be c a us e the gove rnm e nta l l e ge dl y w a s a w a r e of the f a c ts b e h in d th e J a n u a ry o f f e n s e f o rm in g th e b a s is o f

th e in s ta n t in d ic tm e n t w h e n it c ha r ge d hi m f

orthe M a r c h of

f e ns e , i tw a s now ba rr e d f r om pr os e c ut i ng the i ns t a nt in d ic tm e n t “b e c a u s e o f

th e d u e d ilig e n c e r e q u ir e m e n t e s tab lis h e d a s a n o u tg r o w th o f d o u b le je o p a r d y litig a tio n .” D a rvi l l e ’ s c l a i m i nvol ve s a pur e que s t i on of l a w , a nd thus , i s r e vi e w e d de n o v o . C f

. U n ite d S ta te s v . D u a r te - A c e r o , 2 0 8 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) .

“ T h e d u e d i l i g en ce ex cep t i o n w as created to p erm i ta seco n d p ro secu t i o n i n th o se ca se s i n w hi ch the D ou bl e J eopardy C l ause w ou l d o therw i se bar i t . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M a z a , 983 F . 2d 1004, 1008 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . I n B ol di n, w e s t a t e d tha tour hol di ng tha tthe pr os e c ut i on w a s notba rr e d by doubl e j e opa r dy f r om br i ngi ng a 21 U . S . C . § 848 C ont i nui ng C r i m i na l E nt e rpr i s e ( “ C C E ” ) c ha r ge “ d[ i d] notpr e e m pt3

th e ap p e lla n ts ’ o th e ra r g u m e n t th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t s u b je c t[ e d ] th e m to m u ltip le pr os e c ut i ons be c a us e , i n the e xe r c i s e of due di l i ge nc e , i tkne w ors houl d ha ve know n of

the appe l l a nt s ’ pa r t i c i pa t i on i n a c ont i nui ng s e r i e s of vi ol a t i ons of se ct i on 84 8. ” B ol di n, 77 2 F . 2d at73 2. H ow ever , i n M az a, a c as e dec i ded l at er thatal so i nv ol ved a § 8 48 char ge subsequentt o a conspi ra cyconv i ct i on , w e not ed thatB ol di n’ s di sc ussi on of a due di l i gence re qu i re m entw as di ct a. 98 3 F . 2d at 1008 n. 8. I n M a z a , w e he l d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe pr os e c ut i on w a s n o t d o u b le -

je o p a r d y b a rr e d , b u t w a s b a rr e d f o rla c k o f

d u e d ilig e n c e in br i ngi ng c ha r ge s , w a s e rr one ous . S e e i d. a t1008. F ur the r , w e not e d tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t: appl i e d the due di l i ge nc e c onc e ptt o pr e c l ude a s e c ond pr os e c ut i on w h ic h h e h a d a lr e a d y d e c id e d w a s n o t b a rr e d b y d o u b le je o p a r d y . T hi s i s pr e c i s e l y the r e ve r s e or de rof the c orr e c tappl i c a t i on of the doc tr i ne . T he D oubl e J e opa r dy C l a us e doe s notpr e c l ude br i ngi ng i n a seco n d act i o n an y ch arg e w h i ch m i g h th av e b een b ro u g h ti n th e fi rst a c t i on. R a the r , i tonl y pr e c l ude s thos e w hi c h m us tha ve be e n br ought i n the fi rs tor be foreverl ost . T he du e di l i gence doctri ne prov i des a n e xc e pt i on i n thi s l a tt e rs i tua t i on. T hus , i tf ol l ow s , tha ti f

the gove rnm e ntne e d notha ve br oughta l l of i t s c ha r ge s i n the f

i r s ta c t i on, th e r e w a s n o th in g f

o rit to b e d ilig e n t ab o u t. I d. B e c a us e D a rvi l l e doe s nota r gue tha tthe i ns t a ntc ha r ge s vi ol a t e the D ue Pr o c e s s Cl a u s e , w e c o n c l u d e th a tth e d u e d i l i g e n c e e x c e p t i o n i s i n ap p l i c ab l e . By c onc e di ng tha tthe r e w a s no doubl e - j e opa r dy ba rappl i c abl e t o e i the ri ndi c tm e nt , he4

c a nnotnow a r gue tha tthe r e w a s a ny thi ng f orthe gove rnm e nt“ t o be di l i ge nt ab o u t,” a n d , th u s , th e d u e d ilig e n c e e x c e p tio n to a d o u b le je o p a r d y b a ris i napp l i cabl e a nd hi s due di l i gence chal l enge i s bas el es s. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng D a rvi l l e ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the i ndi c tm e nta nd thus a f f i rm D a rvi l l e ’ s c onvi c t i on. AF F I RME D.