FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 8, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 10583 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 8 0 1 1 4 - C R - DT KH 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 A L V I N G . K E E L , 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 8, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntA l vi n G e or ge K e e l ( “ K e e l ” ) appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons f ort a ki ng2

and tra nspo rt i ng l og gerhead se a turt l es , i n v i ol at i on of 16 U . S . C . §§ 15 38 (a )( 1)(G ), 15 40 (b)( 1) and 1 6 U . S . C . §§ 33 72 (a )( 1), 33 73 (d)( 1)(B ), re spec t i vel y. K ee l w as f i r s tc onvi c t e d i n 1998 of a tt e m pt i ng t o tr a ns por tl ogge rhe a d s e atur t l e s . I n 2004, w h ile o n s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e f o rth e 1 9 9 8 c o n v ic tio n , K e e l w a s q u e s tio n e d in c onne c t i on w i th as us pe c t e d tur t l e e gg the f t . A ttha tt i m e , he w a s a rr e s t e d f or vi ol at i ng the supervi se d rel ea se cond i t i on s of hi s 199 8 con vi ct i on . In 20 04 , K ee l w a s f o u n d to h a v e v io la te d h is s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e b y , in te ra lia , c om m i tt i ng the 2004 tur t l e e gg the f

t . H ow e ve r , he w a s notc ha r ge d unde rthe i ns t a nti ndi c tm e nt u n til 2 0 0 6 . K e e l a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to di s m i s s ba s e d on due pr oc e s s orhi s c ons t i tut i ona l ors t a tut ory r i ght s t o as pe e dy tri al . W e a ff

i rm . I. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on t o di s m i s s a n i ndi c tm e ntf or a n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted Stat es v. C larke , 3 1 2 F .3 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 4 5 n . 1 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 02 ). T he s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons i s the pr i m a ry s a f e gua r d a ga i ns tthe gove rnm e nt b r in g in g o v e r ly - s ta le c r im in a l c h a r g e s . U ni te d State s v . M

ar i on , 404 U . S . 307, 3 2 2 , 9 2 S . C t. 4 5 5 , 4 6 4 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . H o w e v e r , w h e n ad e f e n d a n t s h o w s a c tu a l, s ubs t a nt i a l pr e

j udi c e , due pr oc e s s m a y r e qui r e di s m i s s a l of a n i ndi c tm e nt , br ought w i thi n the s t a tut ory pe r i od, i f the gove rnm e nti nt e nt i ona l l y de l a y e d pr os e c ut i ng the3

c a s e in o r d e rto g a in ata c tic a l a d v a n ta g e o v e rth e a c c u s e d . I d. at32 4, 92 . S . C t . at 4 6 5 . A lth o u g h a c tu a l p r e ju d ic e is an e c e s s a ry e le m e n t o f ad u e p r o c e s s c la im , it is n o t, s ta n d in g a lo n e , s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t d is m is s a l. U ni ted Stat es v. L ovasco , 431 U . S . 7 8 3 , 7 9 0 , 9 7 S . C t . 2 0 4 4 , 2 0 4 8 -4 9 (1 9 7 7 ). “ [T ] h e d u e p ro cess i n q u i ry m u st consi der the re as on s f

or the del ayas w el l as the prej ud i ce t o the ac cuse d. ” I d. at 790, 97 S . C t . a t2049. W e h a v e s ta te d th a t ad e f e n d a n t m u s t s h o w th a t ( 1 ) h e w a s a c tu a lly p r e ju d ic e d in p r e p a r in g h is d e f e n s e , a n d ( 2 ) th e d e la y w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . U ni ted State s v . Solom on , 68 6 F . 2d 86 3, 87 1 (11 th C i r. 19 82 ). M oreover, w e r equi re that th e d e la y b e d e lib e r a te ly u n d e r ta k e n in o r d e rto g a in ata c tic a l a d v a n ta g e . U ni ted State s v . B e ns on , 8 4 6 F .2 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , in o r d e rto o b ta in d is m is s a l b a s e d o n p r e - in d ic tm e n t d e la y , ad e f e n d a n t m u s t s h o w b o th d e lib e r a te d e la y to g a in ata c tic a l a d v a n ta g e a n d a c tu a l p r e ju d ic e . St on erv. G radd i ck , 75 1 F . 2d 15 35 , 15 42 -43 (11 th C i r. 19 85 ) ( habeas cont ext ). W i th regard t o d el i bera t e del ayi n o rdert o g ai n a t ac t i ca l advant age, the S up re m e C ou rthas m a de c l e a rtha t“ i nve s t i ga t i ve de l a y i s f unda m e nt a l l y unl i ke de l a y unde r t a ke n by the G ov ernm entsol el y t o g ai n t ac t i ca l advant age over the ac cuse d. ” L ovasco , 431 U .S . a t 7 9 5 , 9 7 S . C t. a t 2 0 5 1 ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . M o r e o v e r , w e h a v e h e ld tha tne gl i ge ntde l a y i s a l s o i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tdi s m i s s a l unde rthi s pr ong of the4

a n a ly s is . B e ns on , 8 4 6 F .2 d a t 1 3 4 3 . P re j ud i ce i s notpres um ed base d o n a l engthy del ay , bu tra ther a ctual p r e ju d ic e m u s t b e s h o w n in e a c h c a s e . St on er , 75 1 F . 2d at15 44 . T he prej ud i ce m u s t b e s u c h th a t it im p a ir s th e f a irn e s s o f

th e d e f e n d a n t’s tr ia l. Solom on , 686 F .2 d a t 8 7 1 . M o r e o v e r , th e p r e ju d ic e m u s t “r is e to c o n s titu tio n a l p r o p o r tio n s ” in o r d e rto s u p p o r t d is m is s a l. B e ns on , 8 4 6 F .2 d a t 1 3 4 2 . B e c a us e the r e c or d e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t e s tha tthe de l a y w a s c a us e d by the p r o s e c u t o r ’ s s c h e d u l e , r a th e rth a n a n a tt e m p tt o g a i n at a c t i c a l a d v a n t a g e , we c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n de t e rm i ni ng tha tthe r e w a s no d e lib e r a te d e la y to g a in ata c tic a l a d v a n ta g e . M o r e o v e r , a s s u m in g , ar gue ndo , that K ee l es t abl i shed del i bera t e del ay , he fa i l ed t o est abl i sh thatthe del ayi m pai re d e i th e rth e p r e p a r a t i o n o f h i s d e f e n s e o rth e f

a i rn e s s o f

h i s tr i a l . T h e r e f

o r e , we c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng the m ot i on t o d i sm i ss o n th e b asi s o f d u e p ro cess. II . W hen revi ew i ng an al l eged vi ol at i on of the S peedy T ri al A ct(the “ S T A ”) , 18 U . S . C . § 3161, w e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr ora nd i t s l eg al co n cl u si o n s de no vo . U ni ted Stat es v. N

oel , 23 1 F . 3d 83 3, 83 6 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) .5

U nd er18 U . S . C . § 3 16 1(b), an i nd i ctm entm ustbe fi l ed w i thi n 3 0 d ay s a ft er th e d a te th a t a n in d iv id u a l is a rr e s te d “in c o n n e c tio n w ith ” th e c h a r g e s a lle g e d in the i nd i ctm ent . M oreover, 18 U . S . C . § 3 16 2(a) (1) r equi re s di sm i ss al of char ges a g a in s t a n in d iv id u a l “a g a in s t w h o m ac o m p la in t is f ile d ” w h e n a n in d ic tm e n t is no tfi l ed w i thi n the t i m e l i m i tse tby § 3 16 1(b). A cc ordi ng l y, the S T A on l y app l i es to a n in d iv id u a l w h o h a s b e e n f o rm a lly c h a r g e d w ith a n o f f e n s e . U ni ted Stat es v. Sa yers , 698 F . 2d 1128, 1131 ( 11th C i r . 1983) ( hol di ng tha tthe S T A w a s not tr i gge r e d w he n the a c c us e d w a s t a ke n i nt o c us t ody , phot ogr aphe d, a nd f in g e rp r in te d , b u t d id n o t h a v e ac o m p la in t o rf o rm a l c h a r g e f

ile d a g a in s t h im ) . M oreover, the fa ctthata s ub se qu entchar ge ar i se s outof the sa m e c ri m i nal eventas a n e a r l i e rc ha r ge doe s notm e a n tha tthe e a r l i e rc ha r ge tr i gge r s the S T A f or p u rp o s e s o f

th e la te rc h a r g e . U

n i ted S ta tes v. D ero se , 7 4 F .3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1996) . A vi ol a t i on of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , i f

i ti s ac r i m i na l a c t , m a y be pr os e c ut e d s e pa r a t e l yf

or( 1) the s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e vi ol a t i on, a nd ( 2) the s u b s ta n tiv e c r im in a l a c t. John son v. U ni ted Stat es , 5 2 9 U .S . 6 9 4 , 7 0 0 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 17 95 , 18 00 -01 (20 00 ). Th e Si x th A me n d me n tp r o v i d e s f o rth e r i g h tt o as p e e d ytr i a l . U . S. C ON ST . a m e nd. V I . A s w i th the S T A , the S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o as pe e dy tr i a l i s not ap p lic ab le u n til a n a c c u s e d h a s b e e n f o rm a lly c h a r g e d w ith a n o f f e n s e . U ni ted6

Stat es v. Sa nchez , 722 F . 2d 1501, 1509 ( 11th C i r . 1984) . I n B arke rv . W i ngo , 407 U . S 51 4, 53 0, 92 S . C t . 21 82 , 21 92 (197 2), a habeas ca se , the S up re m e C ou rt e s t abl i s he d af

ourpa r tt e s tt o de t e rm i ne w he the rade f e nda ntha s be e n de pr i ve d of hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o as pe e dy tr i a l : ( 1) the l e ngth of the de l a y ; ( 2) the r e a s ons f orthe de l a y ; ( 3) the de f e nda nt ' s a s s e r t i on of

the r i ght ; a nd ( 4) the pr e j udi c e t o the de f e nda nt . “ T o tr i gge ras pe e dy tr i a l a na l y s i s , a n a c c us e d m us ta l l e ge tha tthe i nt e rva l be tw e e n [ the i ndi c tm e nt ] a nd tr i a l ha s c r os s e d the thr e s hol d di vi di ng ordi naryfr om pres um pt i vel y pre j ud i ci al del ay . ” U

ni te d State s v . I

ngr am , 446 F . 3d 1332, 1336 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . T he c our tne e d notc ont i nue the a na l y s i s i f the d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t s h o w s u c h ad e la y . I d. G ener al l y, del ay s l on ger than o ne ye ar a r e p r e s u m p tiv e ly p r e

ju d ic ia l. I

d. “ I f a f t e rthe thr e s hol d i nqui ry i s s a t i s f i e d, a nd th e seco n d an d th i rd fact o rs are co n si d ered , al l th ree factors w ei g h h eav i l y ag ai n st the G ov ernm ent , the defendantneed no tshow ac tual prej ud i ce (the fourth fac t or) t o succe ed i n sho w i ng a vi ol at i on of hi s r i gh tt o a spee dy tri al . ” I d. I n 2004, K e e l w a s onl y c ha r ge d w i th the 2004 tur t l e e gg the f ta s avi ol a t i on o f ac o n d itio n o f

h is s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e , n o t a s as u b s ta n tiv e f e d e r a l c h a r g e . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y f ound tha tK e e l w a s nota rr e s t e d, f or pu rposes of the S T A or the const i tut i on al ri gh tt o a spee dy tri al , un t i l 20 06 w hen he w as i nd i ct ed and arre st ed on the sa m e day . T hu s, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ct7

c o u r t c o rr e c tly f

o u n d th a t th e r e w a s n o v io la tio n o f e ith e rth e S T A o rth e S ix th A m e ndm e nt , a nd i tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng di s m i s s a l ba s e d on e i th e rc l a i m. F o r th e ab o v e-st at ed reaso n s, w e affi rm K eel ’ s co n v i ct i o n s. AF F I RME D.