Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170405_0000825.C04.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-06-25 00:05:18
Document Index: 487817813

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\n5032', '§ 5032', '§ 1959', '§ 5032', '§ 5038', '§ 1291', '§ 1291']

| United States v. Under Seal
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,v.UNDER SEAL, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,v.UNDER SEAL, Party-in-Interest - Appellant, and PEDRO ANTHONY ROMERO CRUZ, a/k/a Payaso; JOSE LOPEZ TORRES, a/k/a Peluca, a/k/a Medio Polvo, a/k/a Peluquin, a/k/a Jose Alejandro Donez, a/k/a Lopez Manuel Torres; JAIME ROSALES VILLEGAS, a/k/a Demente, a/k/a Lil Demente; ALVIN GAITAN BENITEZ, a/k/a Pesadilla, a/k/a Lil Pesadilla, a/k/a Lil Tuner, a/k/a Tooner, a/k/a Lil Tunnel; CHRISTIAN LEMUS CERNA, a/k/a Leopardo, a/k/a Bago, a/k/a Vago, a/k/a Gatito, a/k/a Christian Josue Lemus Alfaro; OMAR DEJESUS CASTILLO, a/k/a Lil Payaso, a/k/a Lil Slow; DOUGLAS DURAN CERRITOS, a/k/a Lil Poison, a/k/a Guason, a/k/a Lunche, a/k/a Guadalupe; MANUEL ERNESTO PAIZ GUEVARA, a/k/a Solitario, a/k/a Colita; JOSE DEL CID, a/k/a Duende; JESUS ALEJANDRO CHAVEZ, a/k/a Chuy; JUAN CARLOS MARQUEZ AYALA, a/k/a Skinny; ARAELY SANTIAGO VILLANUEVA, a/k/a Slow, a/k/a Lil Slow, a/k/a Spider; GENARO SEN GARCIA, a/k/a Gatuso, Defendants.
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00349-GBL-1; 1:14-cr-00306-GBL-1)
D. Hernandez, Highland, Maryland, for Appellant.
Christopher John Catizone, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
Vernida R. Chaney, CHANEY LAW FIRM PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia,
J. Boente, United States Attorney, Heather Alpino, Special
WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
a juvenile during all relevant events in this case, appeals
two sets of decisions relating to his juvenile
prosecution.[1] First, Appellant appeals the
district court's decision to grant the federal
government's motion to dismiss the information filed
against him in a juvenile delinquency proceeding without
prejudice, and its decision to deny Appellant's motion to
dismiss the information with prejudice. Second, Appellant
appeals the district court's decision to authorize the
federal government to disclose two confidential documents and
Appellant's identity to third-parties, contending that
the disclosed information should have been kept private.
reasons that follow, we dismiss as interlocutory the appeal
over the dismissal of the information without prejudice and
the denial of Appellant's motion for dismissal with
prejudice. However, we affirm the district court's
authorization of disclosure of the aforementioned
confidential documents. Finally, because we believe that the
controversy surrounding the disclosure of Appellant's
identity is moot on appeal, we vacate the district
court's decision to authorize disclosure of that
October 7, 2013, Nelson Omar Quintanilla Trujillo-a member of
the MS-13 gang-was murdered in Fairfax County, Virginia, by
several of his MS-13 associates. Subsequently, a grand jury
in the Eastern District of Virginia returned an indictment
against multiple adult MS-13 members (the "Adult
Defendants") for taking part in Trujillo's murder.
The prosecution of some of these individuals (the "Adult
Prosecution") remains ongoing. The Adult Prosecution was
assigned docket number 1:14-CR-306, and was assigned to the
Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee.
was an MS-13 gang member who took part in Trujillo's
murder, but was only sixteen years old at the time the murder
took place. On October 16, 2014, the federal government filed
under seal a juvenile delinquency information against
Appellant in connection with his role in Trujillo's
murder (the "Juvenile Prosecution"). In accordance
with the jurisdictional requirements of the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (the
"JJDPA"), Pub. L. No. 93-415, 88 Stat. 1109,
codified as amended in relevant part at 18 U.S.C. §
5032, the information was accompanied by the federal
government's certification that Appellant's case was
a felony "crime of violence" implicating a
"substantial Federal interest, " and that Virginia
prosecutors had declined to exercise their jurisdiction over
Appellant. J.A. 104-05.
was detained the same day that the information against him
was filed. The Juvenile Prosecution was assigned its own
docket number, 1:14-CR-349, and was also assigned to the
October 16, 2014, the federal government filed a motion
pursuant to § 5032 to transfer Appellant for prosecution
as an adult for murder in aid of racketeering, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1). To decide whether to transfer
the case, the district court held a hearing that addressed
the six statutory factors relevant to the transfer decision
under § 5032. On April 21, 2015, the district court
issued an order denying transfer. On April 24, 2015, the
federal government filed an interlocutory appeal of the
district court's order denying transfer.
14, 2015, Appellant's attorney attended a meeting with
federal and state prosecutors. During the meeting, the
federal prosecutors indicated that the federal government had
decided to defer to the Fairfax County Commonwealth
Attorney's Office in the prosecution of Appellant.
Accordingly, the federal prosecutors informed Appellant's
counsel that they intended to dismiss the federal
government's interlocutory appeal and then move to
voluntarily dismiss Appellant's information in the
district court. During the meeting, state prosecutors
indicated that they would proceed against Appellant in state
court following the completion of the federal
government's Adult Prosecution. State prosecutors also
presented plea offers to Appellant's attorney requiring
Appellant to plead to an adult murder charge, although those
offers were never accepted.
16, 2015, the federal government moved to voluntarily dismiss
the interlocutory appeal of the denial of transfer. On August
11, 2015, this Court granted the federal government's
August 17, 2015, the federal government moved to voluntarily
dismiss Appellant's information pursuant to Rule 48(a) of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that
"[t]he government may, with leave of court, dismiss an
indictment, information, or complaint." On August 18,
2015, the district court responded by dismissing the
information without prejudice. Later that day, Appellant
filed a request for a hearing regarding dismissal, which the
district court immediately denied.
September 1, 2015, Appellant filed a motion entitled
"Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration or in the
Alternative Objections to the United States' Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a)
and the Court's Order Granting the Dismissal." J.A.
704. In that motion, Appellant objected to dismissal of the
information without prejudice, on the grounds that such a
dismissal was part of an improper effort by the federal
government to circumvent the JJDPA by using state prosecutors
as a proxy to pursue adult charges. Additionally, Appellant
sought dismissal of the information with prejudice, citing a
violation of his "right to a speedy trial pursuant to 18
U.S.C. [§] 5036." J.A. 710. The district court
denied Appellant's motion on September 3, 2015.
dismissal of the information, Appellant was released to the
custody of immigration authorities. Appellant has since been
deported to his native country, El Salvador; however, he
remains subject to prosecution in the United States in
connection with his role in Trujillo's murder.
federal government requested authorization from the district
court to disclose three pieces of information to the
attorneys for the Adult Defendants (the "Adult Defense
Attorneys"). Although these items were subject to
confidentiality protections under 18 U.S.C. § 5038, the
federal government nonetheless requested disclosure
authorization in order to fulfill what it perceived to be
potential Brady[2] obligations. The items at issue included:
1) The portion of Appellant's testimony from the transfer
hearing (the "Transfer Transcript") related to gang
activity in the United States and the murder of Trujillo. The
original transcript was approximately sixty-five pages long;
however, to avoid disclosing personal or extraneous
information, the federal government only sought disclosure of
approximately twenty-four pages of the testimony.
2) An FBI investigative report (the "Investigative
Report") containing statements about Trujillo's
murder made by Appellant in an interview with the FBI. The
report was approximately five pages long, with approximately
one page of redactions.
3) Appellant's identity (which had been redacted from the
transcript and report).
federal government began by requesting-in the case number for
the Adult Prosecution-authorization to disclose the Transfer
Transcript and the Investigative Report to the Adult Defense
Attorneys. The federal government also filed-in the case
number for the Juvenile Prosecution-a notice of a request for
authorization to disclose the same documents to the Adult
Defense Attorneys. In that notice, the federal government
identified the Transfer Transcript and the Investigative
Report as "potentially Brady material."
J.A. 698. The federal government acknowledged that the MS-13
gang had issued a "death threat" against Appellant
following his abandonment of the gang. J.A. 698. In response,
the federal government proposed seven protective measures
designed to prevent any unauthorized disclosure or
notice added that the Transfer Transcript and the
Investigative Report needed to be disclosed immediately,
because the documents would help the Adult Defense Attorneys
determine whether they should obtain a material witness
warrant for Appellant, who was at risk of being deported at
the time. The federal government noted that if Appellant
invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination, it would consider asking the district
court to excuse it from disclosing the Transfer Transcript
and the Investigative Report, because it refused to offer
Appellant testimonial immunity and "a material witness
warrant would be futile" against a silent Appellant.
J.A. 699.
Juvenile Prosecution case number, Appellant filed an
opposition to the federal government's request to
disclose the Transfer Transcript and the Investigative
Report, arguing that the request was improper, overbroad, and
detrimental to Appellant's safety. However,
Appellant's opposition papers failed to indicate that he
intended to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.
September 2, 2015, the district court issued a pair of
protective orders in the Adult Prosecution case number-one
authorizing the disclosure of the Transfer Transcript, and
the other authorizing the disclosure of the Investigative
Report. Both protective orders contained the federal
government's requested protective measures. One such
protective measure was the following provision: "The
[Adult Defense] [A]ttorneys may discuss the substance of the
[Transfer Transcript and the Investigative Report] with their
client, but they shall not provide the client with direct
access to the document[s] . . . ." J.A. 725, 727. On
September 3, 2015, the district court approved the federal
government's disclosure request, in an order issued in
the Juvenile Prosecution case number.
the Adult Defense Attorneys expressed their desire to apply
for a material witness warrant for Appellant. The federal
government responded by moving in the Adult Prosecution case
number for authorization to disclose Appellant's identity
to the Adult Defense Attorneys, so as to allow them to apply
federal government also filed in the Juvenile Prosecution
case number a notice of a request for authorization to
disclose Appellant's identity to the Adult Defense
Attorneys. Again, this notice was accompanied by a request
for protective measures.
filed a motion seeking to prohibit the disclosure of his
identity. Appellant also filed a separate document,
containing a hearing request and Appellant's assertion of
his privilege against self-incrimination. Both filings were
made in the Juvenile Prosecution case number.
district court held a hearing in the Juvenile Prosecution
case number on September 9, 2015, to help it decide whether
to disclose Appellant's identity. There, the district
court queried the federal government about its security
measures. Additionally, Appellant's attorney explained
that Appellant intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment
privilege, and the district court acknowledged that it
"believe[d] he w[ould]." J.A. 774. During the
hearing, Appellant's attorney also requested that, if the
district court was inclined to authorize disclosure, it at
least stay any disclosure to give Appellant an opportunity
September 9, 2015, the district court in the Adult
Prosecution case number issued a protective order authorizing
disclosure of Appellant's identity exclusively to the
Adult Defense Attorneys to facilitate their application for a
material witness warrant. This protective order contained the
measure was a provision ordering the Adult Defense Attorneys
to refrain from disclosing Appellant's identity to their
clients until (i) the court scheduled a material witness
deposition with Appellant; (ii) 30 days before trial if
Appellant remained detained by the district court; or (iii)
the attorneys were "otherwise ordered by the
court." J.A. 782-83. On September 10, 2015, the district
court in the Juvenile Prosecution case number issued an order
denying Appellant's motion to prohibit disclosure of his
identity. The district court declined to stay any disclosure.
September 1, 2015, before the district court had authorized
any disclosures, Appellant noted an appeal of the dismissal
of the information without prejudice. On September 16, 2015,
once the various disclosures had been authorized, Appellant
noted a separate appeal of the protective orders that were
issued in the Adult Prosecution case number (collectively,
the "Adult Protective Orders"). On September 17,
2015, Appellant noted a third appeal of the
disclosure-related orders that were issued in the Juvenile
Prosecution case number (collectively, the "Juvenile
Disclosure Orders"), as well as the order denying
Appellant's request for dismissal with prejudice in lieu
of dismissal without prejudice.
opening brief, Appellant summarily asserts that this Court
has subject-matter jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. The problem with this assertion-which was
not rebutted by the federal government-is that it fails to
address the fact that Appellant's appeals all take place
in the absence of any final judgment. Because
"[p]iecemeal or interlocutory appeals are disfavored,
" United States v. Lawrence, 201 F.3d 536, 537
(4th Cir. 2000), and because "we are obliged to satisfy
ourselves of subject-matter jurisdiction, even where the
parties concede it, " United States v. Urutyan,
564 F.3d 679, 684 (4th Cir. 2009), we begin our analysis by
addressing whether we have subject-matter jurisdiction in
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;At the
outset, we recognize that "Section 1291 of the Judicial
Code confers on federal courts of appeals jurisdiction to
review &#39;final decisions of the district
courts.&#39;" Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter,
558 U.S. 100, 103 (2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1291).
"Although 'final decisions' typically are ones
that trigger the entry of judgment, they also include a small
set of prejudgment orders that are 'collateral to'
the merits of an action and 'too important' ...