Opinion ID: 2978368
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continuance and Speedy Trial

Text: Strickland also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting an ends-ofjustice continuance of the trial date that resulted in a violation of his right to a speedy trial. The district court granted the Government’s request for a continuance based on the representations that the case agent, Special Agent Patrick Caldwell, was unavailable because he was scheduled to appear in another four-week trial. Under the terms of the Speedy Trial Act, in any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an indictment “shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the . . . indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). Any period of delay resulting from a continuance is deemed excludable delay for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act if the judge finds, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), that the interests of justice outweigh the best interests of the Defendant and the -9- public in a speedy trial. The factors, among others, that a judge must consider in determining whether to grant an ends-of-justice continuance are as follows: (i) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice. (ii) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section. (iii) Whether, in a case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the filing of the indictment is caused because the arrest occurs at a time such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of the indictment within the period specified in section 3161(b), or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base its determination are unusual or complex. (iv) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii), would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel, would unreasonably deny the defendant or the Government continuity of counsel, or would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B).6 Following the return of the indictment on August 17, 2005, the defense filed several pretrial motions that caused periods of delay that were excluded in the speedy trial computation. On October 3, 2006, the Government notified the district court that the case agent was unavailable and asserted that he was an essential witness. The Government moved for a continuance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(3)(A), which provides that a period of delay resulting from the absence or 6 The district court conducted its analysis under former 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B). Congress subsequently amended and renumbered this provision as subsection (7). -10- unavailability of an essential witness “shall be excluded in computing the time within which . . . the trial of any such offense must commence.” Strickland opposed the motion for a continuance, although he did not move for a dismissal of the indictment.7 Strickland maintains that the Government failed to demonstrate that Agent Caldwell was required to be at the other trial continuously or during the time he would be required to testify in the instant case. He contends that another agent, such as Agent Rios, could have served as case agent, and that Agent Caldwell’s actual testimony at trial was brief, undercutting the Government’s prior assertion that he was an essential witness.8 The decision of whether to grant an ends-of-justice continuance under the Speedy Trial Act is within the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Howard, 218 F.3d 556, 563 (6th Cir. 2000).9 A defendant must prove actual prejudice to obtain a reversal on appeal of the trial 7 If the Speedy Trial Act deadline is not met, as extended by Section 3161(h), the district court must dismiss the indictment, either with or without prejudice. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). Because the district court found no violation of the Speedy Trial Act, it did not address whether a dismissal should have been with or without prejudice. 8 The Government notes, however, that Agent Caldwell testified to supervising the Detroit confidential informant, including surveillance and attempting to record the July 30 and August 4, 2004 meetings, and introduced into evidence the suitcase and packages of “drugs.” 9 A district court’s legal conclusions and construction of the Speedy Trial Act are reviewed de novo. United States v. Howard, 129 F.3d 1266 (Table), 1997 WL 705077, - (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 1999) (collecting cases). The trial judge’s findings under the Speedy Trial Act that a continuance would best serve the ends of justice, however, is a factual determination. If the district court properly explains its rationale for the continuance, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Howard, 218 F.3d 556, 563 (6th Cir. 2000). In his Reply Brief, Strickland suggests that this Court engages in a “modified abuse of discretion standard” when reviewing an alleged speedy trial violation. That standard, however, is employed to determine whether a district court properly dismissed an indictment with or without prejudice. A district court that does not set forth written findings containing certain statutory factors before dismissing an indictment with prejudice is subject to a modified abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., United States v. Pierce, 17 F.3d 146, 148 (6th Cir. 1994). -11- judge's decision to grant a continuance. United States v. Monger, 879 F.2d 218, 221 (6th Cir. 1989). As required by the statute, the district court affirmatively set forth and weighed the appropriate § 3161(h)(7) factors. The court provided a rationale for granting the continuance in a written order, which clearly set forth several bases for postponing the trial date. The district court offered both the ends of justice exception and the unavailable-witness exception as rationales for the continuance. The court found that Agent Caldwell was essential to the Government’s prosecution of the case and was not available. Although Strickland asserts that Agent Caldwell was not essential, he has cited to no authority to support this proposition and failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced in the preparation of his defense as a result of the continuance due to the case agent’s unavailability. The district court also noted that it had been “advised by both the Government’s and Defendant’s attorneys” that they had a number of other previously scheduled matters rendering them unavailable for trial until the end of November. (ROA at 123.) Accordingly, the district court determined that “failure to grant a continuance until the end of November would unreasonably deny Defendant and the Government continuity of counsel or would deny both defense counsel and the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation for trial.” (ROA at 123.) Although the Government requested a four-week continuance of the trial due to the agent’s unavailability, the district court granted an eight-week ends-of-justice continuance to accommodate the schedules of both Strickland’s counsel as well as counsel for the Government. Strickland’s trial was reset to and began on November 28, 2006. -12- The district court did not err in ruling that the ends of justice would be served by the continuance, and that it constituted excludable delay. These findings are, therefore, affirmed. C. Substantial Step in Furtherance of the Charged Drug Offense Strickland contends that the Government failed to prove that he took a substantial step towards the commission of the attempt charge. He asserts that the district court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss the indictment in which he asserted that his conduct failed to demonstrate that the parties had reached a meeting of the minds as to such matters as price, quality, volume, and other details of the drug transaction. Strickland emphasizes that he dealt exclusively with law enforcement agents and confidential informants working at the direction of these officers, and, therefore, could not have taken a “substantial step” toward the commission of the offense because he could never possess actual narcotics. He further contends that, because no real drugs or drug dealers were involved in the sham offense, he cannot be accountable for an attempt to commit a drug crime. Essentially, Strickland asserts the defense of impossibility. Prior to trial, Strickland filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, setting forth these same legal arguments. The district court denied the motion. In particular, the district court rejected Strickland’s contentions that he may not be convicted of attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine because the substance was an imitation, not actually a controlled drug. The court’s ruling is supported by United States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521, 525 (6th Cir. 1984) (“[T]he purchase of a noncontrolled substance that the defendant subjectively believes to be a controlled substance can constitute an attempt to possess with intent to distribute under § 846.”). The district court also found no merit to Strickland’s assertion that he could not be convicted of attempt to possess with intent to distribute because the parties had no “meeting of the minds” as to the quantity and total price of -13- the cocaine. The trial court found that even if Strickland did not take actual, physical possession of the sham cocaine, he still may be found to have taken a “substantial step” for purposes of the attempt offense when his conduct, taken as a whole, corroborates a subjective intent to possess the drugs. These conclusions are well established in this Court’s precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Pennyman, 889 F.2d 104, 107 (6th Cir. 1989). As to Strickland’s contention that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, his claim is without merit. The district court correctly applied the law and properly rejected Strickland’s assertions.10 To the extent that Strickland challenges the sufficiency of the Government’s proof that he committed an overt act, that assertion, too, is not supported by the evidence. This Court reviews a “challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Spearman, 186 F.3d 743, 746 (6th Cir.1999); United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739,760 (6th Cir. 2006) (same). Here, ample evidence exists to support Strickland’s conviction for attempt to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. In order to prove an attempt to commit a drug offense, the Government must establish two essential elements: (1) the intent to engage in the prohibited criminal activity, and (2) the commission of an overt act that constitutes a substantial step towards commission of the proscribed 10 In his opening Brief, Strickland framed his position as an appeal of the district court’s decision denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. In his Reply, Strickland restructured his position as a challenge to the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence regarding the attempt conviction. The cases cited by the district court and Strickland’s defense of impossibility to his attempt offense are discussed below in the context of his contention that the Government failed to prove he took a substantial step towards the commission of the crime. -14- criminal activity. United States v. Pennyman, 889 F.2d 104, 106 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Reeves, 794 F.2d 1101, 1104 (6th Cir. 1986)). The substantial step must be comprised of objective acts that “mark defendant’s conduct as criminal in nature.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Bilderbeck, 163 F.3d 971, 975 (6th Cir. 1999) (same). “The defendant’s objective conduct, taken as a whole, must unequivocally corroborate the required subjective intent to purchase or sell actual narcotics.” Bilderbeck, 163 F.3d at 975. Under the “substantial step” analysis, this Court assesses “whether any reasonable person could find that the acts committed would corroborate the firmness of a defendant’s criminal intent, assuming that the defendant did, in fact, intend to commit the crime.” Id. United States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1984), forecloses Strickland’s argument that imitation narcotics cannot form the basis of conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. In Pennell, the defendant asserted that he could not be convicted of attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine because the substance he attempted to purchase from the undercover agents, in fact, was “sham” cocaine. As this Court explained, Pennell’s defense is essentially one of impossibility that Congress intended to eliminate in cases prosecuted under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Id. at 525. The Court held that “the purchase of a noncontrolled substance that the defendant subjectively believes to be a controlled substance can constitute an attempt to possess with intent to distribute under § 846.” Id. The authority in this Circuit for this proposition is firm. Pennyman, 889 F.2d at 107 (holding that a defendant may be found to have taken a “substantial step” for the purpose of an attempt offense even though he or she has failed to gain possession of drugs or “sham” drugs); Bilderbeck, 163 F.3d at 976 (“[A] a purchase is obviously not necessary for a conviction for attempted possession of narcotics.”). -15- Strickland’s assertion that this long line of cases is distinguishable because the Government controlled every aspect of the “attempted” transaction at issue here is supported by neither the facts of this case nor this Court’s unfaltering precedent. Strickland actively sought five kilograms of cocaine, negotiated the price, made a partial payment, and took possession of the imitation drugs. Moreover, Pennell and Bilderbeck each involved reverse-buy operations controlled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, and emphasized the important law enforcement function of the DEA’s policy to use imitation rather than real drugs in these dangerous transactions. This Court has held that “when a defendant engages in active negotiations to purchase drugs, he has committed the “substantial step” towards the crime of possession required to convict him of attempted possession.” Bilderbeck, 163 F.3d at 971. Here, Strickland’s active negotiations to purchase the cocaine strongly corroborate the firmness of his intent to possess it. These negotiations, together with the objectively overt acts of actively soliciting participation in the drug transaction, paying the person he believed to be a drug supplier $20,000 in cash, and carrying away a suitcase that he believed contained five kilograms of cocaine mark his conduct as criminal in nature and comprise a substantial step towards the commission of the offense.