Opinion ID: 795513
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Southern District Indictment and Olmeda's Motion to Dismiss

Text: 13 Some ten months after Olmeda's release from prison, on August 10, 2004, a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of New York returned a one-count indictment charging him with unlawful possession of the ammunition seized from his Manhattan apartment on June 19, 2002. That indictment stated: 14 On or about June 19, 2002, in the Southern District of New York, ANTONIO OLMEDA, the defendant, after having been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, to wit, a November 2, 1995 conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree, a Class B felony, in the New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did possess in and affecting commerce, ammunition, to wit, approximately 88 rounds of various types of ammunition, that were produced with cartridge cases that had previously been shipped and transported in interstate commerce. 15 (Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1).) 16 Southern District Indictment at 1. 17 On February 17, 2005, Olmeda moved for the dismissal of this indictment, arguing that (1) double jeopardy precluded the government from prosecuting him in the Southern District of New York for conduct that was subsumed in the earlier North Carolina indictment, and (2) the two-year delay between the New York seizure of ammunition and the Southern District indictment deprived him of due process. See U.S. Const., amend V. After conducting a hearing on the issue of undue delay, the district court rejected both of Olmeda's constitutional claims as without merit. With particular reference to the double jeopardy challenge, the district court noted the `general rule . . . that one offense is charged under the terms of [the unlawful possession statute] regardless of the number of firearms involved, absent a showing that the firearms were stored or acquired at different times and places.' United States v. Olmeda, No. 04 CR 858, 2005 WL 1241899, at  (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2005) (quoting United States v. Wiga, 662 F.2d 1325, 1336 (9th Cir.1981) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Applying this rule, the district court held that double jeopardy did not bar Olmeda's prosecution on the Southern District indictment because it seems clear that the ammunition referred to in [that indictment] must have been acquired at least on [a] different date[] than the ammunition seized from Olmeda's person in North Carolina. Id. at . 18 Olmeda filed an interlocutory appeal of the district court's ruling to this court.