Opinion ID: 45358
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hartzog’s Speedy Trial Act Claim

Text: Hartzog also claims that the district court erred in failing to dismiss this case pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. In this appeal, Hartzog claims that his prosecution involved two separate violations of the Speedy Trial Act. First, Hartzog argues that his prosecution violated the Speedy Trial Act because over thirty days elapsed between the filing of the criminal complaint on June 21, 2004, and the filing of the superseding indictment on August 26, 2004. Hartzog also argues that the district court erred in granting the government a continuance. He claims that this error caused over seventy days to elapse between the filing of the complaint and the commencement of his trial, which also violated the Speedy Trial Act. The government responds by arguing that Hartzog’s claims fail to account for the specific exceptions which served to toll the time limitations of the Speedy Trial Act in this case. First, the government argues that the filing of the initial 12 indictment on June 23, 2004, tolled the thirty day arrest-toindictment clock. Citing this court’s decision in United States v. Perez, 217 F.3d 323, 329 (5th Cir. 2000), the government points out that although the superseding indictment increased the drug quantities alleged, both the original and superseding indictments charged the same offenses, and therefore no violation of the Speedy Trial Act occurred. Second, the government points out that even without considering the district court’s September 8, 2004, order granting a continuance, Hartzog’s trial still occurred within the seventy-day limit set forth by the Speedy Trial Act, because the district court properly excluded several time periods based on motions filed by Hartzog. The Speedy Trial Act requires that an “indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). When, as here, the government files a superseding indictment based on the same criminal transaction, and the superseding indictment is filed more than thirty days after the defendant’s arrest, the filing of the original indictment tolls the thirty-day limit set forth in the statute. Perez, 217 F.3d at 328-29. Therefore, the district court correctly declined to dismiss the superseding indictment based on the Speedy Trial Act. 13 The Speedy Trial Act also requires that “the trial of a defendant . . . shall commence within seventy days from the filing date . . . 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). However, several “periods of delay” are “excluded . . . in computing the time within which the trial of any such offense must commence[,]” including a “delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h), (h)(1)(F). We have held that “[o]bviously any pretrial motion leveled at dismissing th[e] indictment counts as excludable time under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F).” United States v. Castellano, 848 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1988). Here, as in Castellano, there was no violation of the seventy-day time limit of the Speedy Trial Act because the district court properly excluded several periods for delay when it considered Hartzog’s pretrial motions.