Opinion ID: 153055
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Reason for the Delay

Text: The next factor we weigh is the reason for the ten-year delay. The government bears the burden of establishing valid reasons for the delay. See Ingram, 446 F.3d at 1337 ([T]he burden is on the prosecution to explain the cause of the pre-trial delay.) (quotations omitted). We allocate different weight to different reasons for delay: (1) [a] deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense [is] weighted heavily against the government; (2) [a] more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts [is] weighted less heavily [against the government] but nevertheless [is] considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than the defendant; and (3) a valid reason, such as a missing witness, ... serve[s] to justify appropriate delay. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182. A government's inability to arrest or try a defendant because of the defendant's own evasive tactics constitutes a valid reason for delay. See Ingram, 446 F.3d at 1337. But the government's failure to pursue a defendant diligently will weigh against it, more or less heavily depending on if the government acted in good or bad faith. See id. at 1339-40. The record adequately supports the district court's finding that Villarreal engaged in evasive tactics to impede the government's efforts to arrest him. [4] Almost immediately after the grand jury issued an indictment against Villarreal, three federal agents traveled to the Mission, Texas, area with an informant to investigate the informant's lead that Villarreal lived in the area. They surveilled three properties potentially connected to Villarreal, one of which Villarreal now claims to have resided in at the time the agents went to Mission. [5] But the government's informant, a cooperating defendant with an incentive to assist in Villarreal's arrest, received information that Villarreal had fled to the border-town of Reynosa, Mexico. [6] Although these particular agents left the Mission area at this point, the marshal's office that covered the Mission area received a Declaration of Fugitive form no later than February 1999 that listed the charges against Villarreal, the addresses associated with him, as well as his height, weight, and associates. And in 2005, agents followed up a lead on an address in the Mission area only to have the neighbors inform them that they had not seen [Villarreal] in quite a while. (R. v.2 Doc. 102 at 39.) In addition to these ground-level investigations, the federal agents also used databases to pursue Villarreal. The agents monitored the National Crime Information Center database and the Auto Track database for any information that could lead to Villarreal's arrest. They checked these databases annually and also received alerts for any changes in the databases that could be connected to Villarreal. These annual database checks and alerts would have revealed any efforts by Villarreal to change, renew, or obtain a social security card, immigration card, or driver's license as well as any changes to Villarreal's credit records. And each time the federal agents received alerts potentially connected to Villarreal (e.g., when an alert notified the agents that a person detained elsewhere matched Villarreal's description), the agents appear to have followed those leads to their end, but none ever led to Villarreal. On top of using these nationwide databases, early in the investigation the federal agents made at least one affirmative inquiry with a Texas agencyand all signs indicated Villarreal was in Texas or Mexicorequesting any new addresses, photographs, or licensing information on Villarreal, but the inquiry produced no fruitful information. Finally, in 2005 the agents also placed a border patrol lookout for Villarreal that would trigger Villarreal's detention if immigration officials checked Villarreal's credentials at an official border entry point. [7] Although Villarreal complains that the government should have made more substantial efforts to locate him, the record supports the district court's finding that Villarreal stymied the government's efforts through evasion. The agents received seemingly reliable information that Villarreal had fled to Reynosa, Mexico, soon after law enforcement seized Villarreal's tractor-trailer in December 1997. The government attempted to notify Villarreal of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings, but received no response. Moreover, prior to the seizure of his truck, Villarreal had a driver's license and a credit card in his own name. Yet, the record does not contain any driver's license, tax, employment, utility, credit, immigration, or other records indicating Villarreal resided in Mission, Texas, after his indictment. And aside from his sister and nephew, no witnesses testified that Villarreal resided in Mission, Texas. Given that Villarreal claims to have resided and worked in Mission, Texas, from the time his truck was seized until at least 2004, the near-complete absence of records and witnesses to support that claim is telling. Finally, Villarreal's own evidence shows that Villarreal had moved to a Mexican border-town near Reynosa in 2004 or 2005 and that he resided there until his arrest in 2008 (though he made occasional visits to Mission, Texas). And, if he was residing in Mission, Texas, the absence of normal supporting records of that supports an inference that he was trying to hide from authorities. Based on this record, we cannot conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding that Villarreal purposefully evaded law enforcement by fleeing to Mexico and leading a paperless life. Because Villarreal made substantial efforts to evade police, and that partially explains the failure to arrest Villarreal earlier, we weigh this factor in favor of the government. However, because we have noted some concerns about gaps in the government's efforts to locate Villarreal, we decline to give this factor very much weight.