Opinion ID: 1043279
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellant's Request for Sanctions

Text: Finally, the appellant argues that the government violated 18 U.S.C. § 3161(j)(1)(B) by failing to advise him of the detainer and that it should have been sanctioned by the district court. The government argues that this request has been raised for the first time on appeal and is, therefore, waived. Our review of the record below indicates that the briefs and the hearing at the district court focused on the appellant's request for dismissal only. The appellant did not raise the issue of sanctions other than dismissal in even an oblique way until he filed his reply brief in the district court, in which he simply asked that court to dismiss the indictment with prejudice and significant deprivation of an individual's liberty. Copley, 774 F.2d at 730. A detainer may either request notification from a state prior to releasing an individual from custody, or ask state authorities to keep the individual in state custody. See Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 719, 105 S. Ct. 3401, 3403 (1985). Here, the State continued to hold the appellant on State charges past August 29, 2011. Had the [Jail] been aware of the dropped charges and continued to hold [the appellant] under the authority of the detainer, different considerations would apply. Copley, 774 F.2d at 730. We do not pass upon what different considerations may come into play in an appropriate case. -22- grant other appropriate relief. The appellant wholly failed to specify what measures or sanctions he believed would constitute other appropriate relief at any time before the district court. Neither did the appellant bring the district court's attention to 18 U.S.C. § 3162(b), which sets forth a range of potential sanctions falling short of dismissal that may be imposed to remedy certain violations of the Speedy Trial Act. Passing allusions are not adequate to preserve an argument in either a trial or an appellate venue. United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir. 1992). There is no indication that the appellant's cursory request for other appropriate relief was anything other than standard, boilerplate language. The appellant did not sufficiently raise this request at the district court and has, therefore, waived any claims of error based on a failure to impose a sanction short of dismissal.