Opinion ID: 6333684
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Delay in Bringing Charges

Text: Wilson argues the government unreasonably delayed in bringing charges against him for submitting inaccurate cash-flow statements in January and February 2020. He cites a Fourth Circuit case for the proposition that “[a]fter an unreasonable time, violations of which the state is aware become stale or are waived as a basis for 20 Appellate Case: 21-1099 Document: 010110673884 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 Page: 21 revoking probation.” Farabee v. Clarke, 967 F.3d 380, 393 (4th Cir. 2020). But “cases considering due process claims for revocation proceedings have held that relief is not called for unless there was both unreasonable delay and prejudice.” United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2008). Wilson has not shown either. The government sought revocation on October 5, 2020. Wilson cites no evidence indicating that the government knew his cash-flow statements were inaccurate before August 24, 2020, or any authority indicating the government’s brief delay in bringing charges was unreasonable. Cf. Farabee, 967 F.3d at 393 (finding delay of “over a decade” unreasonable). And while he argues the delay prejudiced him because it prevented him from calling Pilcher as a witness or obtaining relevant bank records, he provides no evidence or rationale to support either claim.