Opinion ID: 2737209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: gamez’s challenge

Text: Gamez raises one issue on appeal: the adequacy of the indictment. He asserts that it was impermissibly vague, and that it “failed to allege the correct time period in which most of the criminal conduct occurred.” Gamez argues that since the “majority of testimony centered around a ‘buy bust’ on June 10, 2010 that resulted in [his] arrest,” and the indictment alleges conduct from “sometime in or about January 2009, and continuously thereafter up to and including May 12, 2010,” most of the evidence at trial concerned events outside of the dates alleged in the indictment. As a result of this alleged deficiency, Gamez argues that he was unable to properly prepare a defense, and that he was unable to ensure that his prosecution was based on facts previously presented to the grand jury. Gamez waived his challenge to the indictment by failing to raise it before trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(e); United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 359 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Failure to comply with this rule generally constitutes waiver.”). 3 Nevertheless, we will review the alleged errors relating to the adequacy of the indictment here for plain error. See United States v. Hoover, 467 F.3d 496, 498 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Rodriguez, 360 3 On December 1, 2014, absent congressional action, revisions to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 will take effect. These revisions will alter the rule’s “waiver” provision by making it a “timeliness” provision: “Consequences of Not Making a Timely Motion Under Rule 12(b)(3). If a party does not meet the deadline for making a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the motion is untimely. But a court may consider the defense, objection, or request if the party shows good cause.” Gamez has never attempted to show “good cause” for why he failed to make a timely motion challenging the indictment. 16 Case: 13-40322 Document: 00512782290 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/25/2014 No. 13-40322 F.3d 949, 958 (9th Cir. 2004) (reviewing alleged insufficient indictment for plain error when raised for first time in a Rule 34 motion)). 4 This court has held that in the conspiracy context “[a]n allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment, and, within reasonable limits, the offense need only occur before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations.” United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 259–60 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have previously found that “[a] five-month variance between the date alleged and the date proved is not unreasonable as a matter of law as long as the date proven falls within the statute of limitations and before the return of the indictment.” Girod, 646 F.3d at 316–17 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Russell v. United States, 429 F.2d 237, 238 (5th Cir. 1970) (finding that in the conspiracy context “within reasonable limits, proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient.”). Given that the “buy bust” and Gamez’s arrest occurred on June 10, 2010, there is no question that the offense conduct occurred both before the return of the indictment, which was on July 7, 2010, and within the statute of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282 (establishing five year statute of limitations). The facts here are well within the five-month discrepancy we concluded in Girod was not an unreasonable variance between the evidence presented at trial and the indictment, 646 F.3d at 316, since the “buy bust” took place on 4Rodriguez dealt with a situation where the defendant brought his challenge to the indictment for the first time in a Rule 34 motion, after he had pled guilty and judgment had been entered. 360 F.3d at 958. The defendant argued that he was entitled to de novo review, whereas the government argued that the review should be for plain error because the “postjudgment Rule 34 motion does not constitute pre-trial review.” Id. The Ninth Circuit sided with the Government and conducted a plain error review. Id. Here, Gamez brought his challenge for the first time after the Government rested its case-in-chief. 17 Case: 13-40322 Document: 00512782290 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/25/2014 No. 13-40322 June 10, 2010, and the indictment listed May 12, 2010 as the end date of the conspiracy. Moreover, Gamez fails to explain how the indictment failed to provide him with “the substantial safeguards . . . an indictment is designed to provide.” Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763 (1962) (internal quotation marks omitted). He was fully aware of the charges against him, and the criminal complaint, issued the day after his arrest, indicated that the criminal conduct ran “up until the present.” Given these circumstances, Gamez cannot establish that he is entitled to relief. 5