Opinion ID: 775404
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Automobile Bank Loan Fraud

Text: Nos. 00-1767 and 00-1669 110 In 1999, under a conditional plea agreement, Scott pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994), and two counts of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (1994). He received a 46 month sentence to be served consecutive to another sentence and was ordered to pay $35,500.00 in restitution. On appeal Scott raises three main claims: violation of the Speedy Trial Act, invalid search warrants, and incorrect sentencing. We find that there was a violation of the Act, but that Scott is entitled only to a dismissal of the charges without prejudice.
111 Scott's lead argument is that the indictment should have been dismissed for violation of the Speedy Trial Act (STA), 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. (1994). Scott argues that the STA was violated because the trial court failed to dispose of his motion to suppress within 30 days of taking it under advisement, and failed to try him within 70 days, if the days the motion was under advisement, beyond the 30 days, are not excluded. The court, he says, retroactively held that there was no STA violation based on reasoning that it did not formally take the motion to suppress under advisement because it found later it needed other submissions to be filed in order to decide a small subset of issues. 112 Scott also argues that the remedy for the STA violation is that the indictment should be dismissed with prejudice because the offense is not serious, the trial court exceeded the statutory time to dispose of the motion, and the impact of reprosecution on the administration of justice and on the STA counsels against dismissal without prejudice.
113 In enacting the STA, Congress imposed specific time limitations on the district courts in order to make the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial more effective. H.R. Rep. No. 96-390, at 2-3 (1979), reprinted in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 805, 807. Thus, a defendant must be tried within 70 days of the filing of the indictment or the defendant's first appearance before a judicial officer, whichever occurs later. Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 322 (1986). However, not every day between the indictment or appearance and the trial counts toward the 70-day limit. The STA specifies a number of circumstances that can suspend the running of the time. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h). We start with the facts needed to do the STA calculations. 114 Scott was indicted on March 25, 1999, and arraigned on April 14, 1999. On August 19, 1999, Scott moved to suppress all evidence seized in two searches, of his house on March 16, 1999 and of his computer on April 8, 1999. Scott argued that the searches were unlawful due to insufficient probable cause, lack of particularity, the search exceeding the scope of the warrant, and noncompliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41. Scott argued the government could not rely on the plain view doctrine as to items seized beyond those described in the warrants. In its opposition to the motion, the government said that it would not offer most of the evidence to which Scott objected, and that it would offer only ten items on a plain view rationale. It provided no argument as to why those items fell within the plain view doctrine. In his reply, Scott conceded two of those ten disputed items were admissible, but disputed the remainder. He also pointed out that the government had failed to provide any specific argument as to the other eight items purportedly justified by the plain view doctrine. 115 At a pretrial conference in August 1999, a hearing on Scott's pretrial motion to suppress was set for September 16, 1999. On September 16, when the attorneys for both sides arrived in court for the hearing, they agreed to submit the motion on the filings because of inclement weather. At the brief court proceeding, the trial judge stated: [i]f, as I wrestle with the papers, I think that I want to hear from anyone, you can be sure that I will schedule a hearing and not just go ahead on the paper record. The judge then concluded by stating that he would take [the matter] under advisement on the record as it's been prepared. The court evidently concluded that a hearing was not required. 116 On January 18, 2000, 124 days after the September 16 proceeding, the district court issued a memorandum and order denying virtually all of Scott's claims in the motion to suppress. United States v. Scott, 83 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D. Mass. 2000). However, as to items the government proffered on the plain view doctrine, the court requested the parties to prepare a list of items disputed (although the effect of the prior filings was to do that), and to brief the admissibility of each one. Id. at 201. The district court thus seemed responsive to the argument defendant had made in his September 16 reply about the lack of item by item argument from the government. The court did not set any date for the additional filings to be made. As it turned out, by February, it became clear that no additional submissions from the parties were necessary because the government agreed it would not use any of that evidence. 117 Scott filed a timely motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act on March 8, 2000. The district court orally denied Scott's motion on March 22, 2000, justifying in STA terms the 124 days it had taken to decide the motion to suppress. The court reasoned that by stating that it might need additional submissions from the parties it made itself clear that the matter was not formally under advisement, despite its use of those very words at the conclusion of the September 16, 1999 proceeding. Therefore the entire period of time from the filing of the motion, to the hearing on that motion, to the partial decision on the motion, was, in the court's view, excludable under the STA. This is not a situation in which the district court invoked the ends of justice rationale of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8). The district court was explicit that its only reason for denying the STA motion was that it requested further filings. 118 We review issues of law under the STA de novo and review factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez, 63 F.3d 1159, 1162 (1st Cir. 1995). In 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h), the STA outlines several situations in which time is excluded from the 70-day limit between the indictment or appearance of the defendant and the trial. For example, the time between the filing of a pretrial motion and the hearing on the motion is excludable: 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 is excludable. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). 119 Once the motion is actually under advisement, the trial court has up to 30 excludable days to decide it: delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty days, during which any proceeding concerning the defendant is actually under advisement by the court is excludable. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(J). Normally this means that the court must decide the motion within 30 days after a hearing on that motion. Rodriguez, 63 F.3d at 1163. However, if the court requires further filings at the hearing, then the 30 day period runs from the date of the last filing. Henderson, 476 U.S. at 331. If the matter is taken on the papers alone, a decision must be rendered within 30 days of the last submission. United States v. Salimonu, 182 F.3d 63, 68 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Barnes, 159 F.3d 4, 11 (1st Cir. 1998); Rodriguez, 63 F.3d at 1163; United States v. Rush, 738 F.2d 497, 505 (1st Cir. 1984); see also United States v. Wilson, 835 F.2d 1440, 1442 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 120 In Henderson, the Supreme Court that held subsections (F) and (J), read together, mean that the STA permits an exclusion of up to 30 days while the district court has a motion 'under advisement,' i.e., 30 days from the time the court receives all the papers it reasonably expects. 476 U.S. at 328-29. As Henderson notes, subsection (F) controls two situations: 121 The first arises when a pretrial motion requires a hearing: subsection (F) on its face excludes the entire period between the filing of the motion and the conclusion of the hearing. The second situation concerns motions that require no hearing and that result in a prompt disposition. There, the promptness requirement was intended to provide a point at which time will cease to be excluded, where motions are decided on the papers filed without hearing. S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 34. The point at which time will cease to be excluded is identified by subsection (J), which permits an exclusion of 30 days from the time a motion is actually under advisement by the court. Without the promptness requirement in subsection (F), a court could exclude time beyond subsection (J)'s 30-day under advisement provision simply by designating the additional period as time from the filing of the motion through its disposition under subsection (F). 122 476 U.S. at 329. 123 This case presents a hybrid situation. Although the motion to suppress was set for hearing on September 16, 1999, no hearing was actually held. Instead, the parties submitted on the papers, and the court explicitly took the matter under advisement. Thus, this could be viewed as a situation in which there was no hearing and so the requirement on the district court was one of prompt disposition of the matter under subsection (F); it could also be viewed as under advisement, and so subject to the 30-day limit for decision in subsection (J). Henderson, however, makes it clear that the difference does not matter to the time allowed -- in either situation no more than 30 days are excluded: [T]he phrase 'prompt disposition' was intended to prevent a district court from using subsection (F) to exclude time after a motion is taken under advisement when that time fails to qualify for exclusion under subsection (J). Id. 124 The Supreme Court also noted that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary had explained: 125 [I]n using the words prompt disposition, the committee intends to make it clear that, in excluding time between filing and disposition on the papers, the Committee does not intend to permit circumvention of the 30-days, under advisement provision contained in Subsection (h)(1)(J). Indeed, if motions are so simple or routine that they do not require a hearing, necessary advisement time should be considerably less than 30 days. 126 Id. (quoting S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 34 (1979)). 127 Henderson also addressed the situation where the court determines that it needs additional submissions on a motion which required a hearing. The Court noted that the statute prescribes that for motions decided solely on the papers, Congress has allowed exclusion of time during which the parties are filing their briefs. Henderson, 476 U.S. at 331 (discussing subsections (F) and (J)). The same rule, the Court held, applies to exclude the period after the hearing when the court is awaiting additional briefing. Id. 128 Thus, the periods of exclusion under the Act which are unrestricted in time include the time between the filing of the motion and the hearing on the motion, and the period of time to obtain additional filings needed for disposition of the motion. See Salimonu, 182 F.3d at 67-69 (two-year delay in holding hearing is excludable time); United States v. Staula, 80 F.3d 596, 601 (1st Cir. 1996) (STA excludes time between filing of motion and hearing on motion even if the delay is overlong, inexplicable, or unreasonable). Once the additional filings are submitted, and a hearing is not required, the court must decide promptly, within 30 days. 129 The closest case we can find to our situation is United States v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537 (7th Cir. 1983). There, the trial court took a pretrial motion under advisement (after post-hearing motions), kept it under advisement for more than three months and then said it needed additional filings. Id. at 543. The court rejected the argument that the entire period was excludable: the requirement of prompt disposition in section 3161(h)(1)(F) may not be circumvented by . . . ordering the hearing reopened more than 30 days after the matter has been taken under advisement. Id. at 544. We agree. 130 The STA makes no provision for what the district court did here: not decide the motion for 124 days and then retroactively seek to explain the lack of prompt disposition by saying it needed additional filings, although it had taken the matter under advisement earlier. Nor does the STA make any provision for a district court effectively to take a matter under advisement for decision, but then to avoid the STA timeline by saying that matter was not under advisement within the meaning of the Act. We do not think the STA permits either course of action. Such an approach would undermine the purposes of the Act. 131 Congress plainly wanted even more complicated motions than the one here to be decided within 30 days of a hearing, and less complicated motions, decided without a hearing, to be decided promptly, within that 30-day period. Congress was also concerned about holding the district courts to the STA framework and avoiding loopholes. That concern has been shared by the circuit courts. See United States v. Grosz, 76 F.3d 1318, 1325 n.7 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Moran, 998 F.2d 1368, 1371-72 (6th Cir. 1993); United States v. Brenna, 878 F.2d 117, 122 (3rd Cir. 1989) (per curiam); United States v. Crane, 776 F.2d 600, 606-07 (6th Cir. 1985); United States v. Tunnessen, 763 F.2d 74, 77 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Tibboel, 753 F.2d 608, 611 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Carey, 746 F.2d 228, 230 (4th Cir. 1984); United States v. Frey, 735 F.2d 350, 353 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Richmond, 735 F.2d 208, 216 (6th Cir. 1984); Janik, 723 F.2d at 545; United States v. Gonzalez, 671 F.2d 441, 444 (11th Cir. 1982). In Staula, this Circuit also warned that it would not permit . . . the district court . . . to jerry-build a 'hearing' in order to thwart the concinnous operation of the Speedy Trial Act. 80 F.3d at 602 n.3. 18 132 We realize our holding may pose practical problems for a trial judge who after taking a motion under advisement decides that additional filings are required. The answer inherent in the structure of the STA is that the judge must pay prompt attention to the materials that have been filed with the motion. A hearing date need not be scheduled until the court has had the opportunity to review the materials and to determine if additional filings are needed. That should, in most instances, avoid the problem presented here. 133 Still, it is possible that a judge in good faith does not reach the conclusion that additional filings are required to decide a motion until he or she works on the motion after it is taken under advisement. Nonetheless, Congress has imposed a 30 day rule for the decision of motions. One would expect a court working under a 30-day limit to identify the need for additional filings early in that period and so notify the parties. Under those rare circumstances, excluding the period of time between the request for additional filings and the receipt of those filings would be permissible, but the time involved in deciding the motion would remain 30 days. In some situations, some further exclusion might be in order, in the form of tolling the 30-day period. 19 134 By this holding, we do not adopt a flat rule that a district court may never exceed the time limits in the STA and then justify it after the fact. Some future set of facts, perhaps involving an express and proper invocation of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8), may support such an action. However, the disciplines of the time limits in the STA are better maintained by explanations given before the clock runs out.
135 This leaves the question of the appropriate remedy for the STA violation: dismissal of the charges against Scott without prejudice (so the government may proceed again) or with prejudice (foreclosing new proceedings). This Court may, in its discretion, decide the question itself or remand the question to the district court. Barnes, 159 F.3d at 16. In this case, we think it is quite clear that the dismissal should be without prejudice and see no reason to remand. 20 In addition, the determination of this issue by this Court would further the goals of judicial economy, and better serve the purposes of the STA -- protecting both defendants' rights to, and the public's interest in, the swift administration of justice. H.R. Rep. No. 96-390 at 3, reprinted in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 807. 136 In deciding whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice, the STA directs the court to consider at least three factors: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal; and (3) the impact of reprosecution on the administration of justice and on the administration of the STA. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); see United States v. Hastings, 847 F.2d 920, 925-29 (1st Cir. 1988). In Barnes, this Court added a fourth factor to the nonexclusive list outlined in the statute itself: whether the delay resulted in actual prejudice to the defendant. 159 F.3d at 16. 137 First, Scott's offense was serious. Bank fraud is a serious offense which carries with it a maximum sentence of 30 years' imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Second, the facts and circumstances of the delay do not show any bad faith on the part of the government. The delay was largely due to the district court, which acted without clear guidance by the law on the point. 138 Third, the impact of reprosecution on the administration of justice and on the STA does not call for dismissal with prejudice. It is clear that whenever the STA's requirements are not met, the administration of justice is adversely affected. Hastings, 847 F.2d at 926. The STA nevertheless asks the courts to consider the degree to which the administration of justice is harmed. Here, taking Scott's case through the justice system again would probably not take a long time. Scott, after all, filed a conditional guilty plea to the indictment before he pursued this appeal based on a STA violation. There are also no indications that reprosecution in this case would in some other way have a harmful effect on the fair and efficient administration of justice. Barnes, 159 F.3d at 17. Similarly, the impact on the administration of the STA also counsels against dismissal with prejudice. There is no question that a dismissal with prejudice would have a stronger deterrent effect than a dismissal without prejudice. However, the fact that there is a dismissal at all is deterrence enough in this case. 139 Finally, the delay resulting from reprosecution will not prejudice Scott. Scott has not yet begun to serve his sentence on this case, because it is to be served consecutively to his 96-month sentence on other indictments. Scott has also never asserted that the delay has adversely affected his ability to prepare for trial. For all these reasons, the charges against Scott will be dismissed without prejudice. 140 Although the charges against Scott in this case must be dismissed without prejudice, it is likely the charges will be brought anew and the remaining issues recur. For this reason, we deal with the remaining issues presented by the appeal.
141 Scott argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence by finding there was probable cause to issue two search warrants. Scott claims, inter alia, that there was insufficient cause to issue the first warrant to search his residence. He argues the warrant was based only on information from unreliable confidential informants where such information was insufficiently corroborated. Specifically, Scott says that the information was corroborated only as to innocent details, and the informants' own bad deeds. He also claims that an unreliable informant was used for cross-corroboration purposes. Scott argues that the affidavit that supported the search warrant did not create a nexus that probable cause existed that evidence of the alleged crime would be found at his residence, and that the search warrant was overly broad because it amounted to a general warrant that far exceeded the scope of probable cause. 142 In addition, Scott argues that the trial court erred by finding probable cause to seize his computers. He says the finding of probable cause was based on allegations of bank fraud where the affidavit in support of the warrant did not demonstrate an evidentiary nexus between the computers and the allegations of bank fraud. He also claims that the finding of probable cause was based on uncorroborated statements of unreliable informants. 143 We have considered these arguments and they are without merit. The district court opinion, Scott, 83 F. Supp. 2d at 190-201, details the reasons why probable cause was present, and we see no need to add to the discussion. The district court's denial of the motion to suppress was correct.
144 As to sentencing, Scott claims the trial court erred in sentencing him based on an erroneous Criminal History Category. He objects that his Criminal History Category (CHC) of VI was impermissibly based on an uncounseled state felony conviction. If this conviction is not used, his CHC drops to V, so that his sentence would fit within a range of 33 to 41 months. Scott relies on the fact that no waiver of counsel form was found in Scott's state court record. The trial court found that Scott had waived counsel in the state criminal case and that, even if not, it would have departed upward in any event to reach 46 months. 145 Scott shortchanges the district court's reasoning. Scott was no stranger to criminal proceedings at the time of his state conviction, and it is not credible that he did not know of his right to counsel. Also, there is a record of Scott being represented by counsel in the state court case immediately after his plea. The district court reasoned that it was more plausible that Scott waived counsel and the form evidencing it was inadvertently not in the file, than that Scott was denied his right to counsel. Scott did not introduce evidence that he was unrepresented by counsel, but simply relied on the lack of evidence that he was. See United States v. Cordero, 42 F.3d 697, 701-02 (1st Cir. 1994) (In the absence of specific evidence, the court below had a right to treat the disputed conviction as constitutional and give it weight in constructing appellant's sentence.). In these circumstances, the district court's conclusion cannot be called clear error, if error at all. 21