Court Opinion

ID: 9939890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 01:00:32.753012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:05.734567
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20468         Document: 00517062757             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/12/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                             FILED
                                                                                      February 12, 2024
                                       No. 21-20468
                                      ____________                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                             Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Andy Badenock,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:18-CR-405-5
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          A jury convicted Andy Badenock of conspiracy to possess with intent
   to distribute cocaine. Before proceeding to trial, Badenock moved to dismiss
   his indictment, claiming that the Government violated his Sixth Amendment
   right to a speedy trial. According to Badenock, the Government had all the
   evidence it needed to indict him two-and-a-half-years before it did so. Such a
   delay, Badenock believed, resulted in the loss of “two witnesses that could

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-20468      Document: 00517062757          Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                    No. 21-20468

   have testified on his behalf.” Citing this and the factors outlined in Barker v.
   Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), Badenock urged the district court to dismiss the
   indictment on speedy trial grounds.
          The district court refused to do so. As a threshold matter, the court
   found that the Sixth Amendment did not apply to Badenock’s challenge. It
   instead recognized that the two protections against pre-indictment delay
   were statutes of limitations and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
   Amendment. Considering both in its ruling, the court then analyzed whether
   the two-and-a-half-year delay was unlawful. Regarding the statute of
   limitations, the court explained that Badenock was indicted well within the
   five-year timeframe permissible for his charged crimes. See 18 U.S.C.
   § 3282(a). As for the Due Process Clause, the court applied the relevant
   standard, and concluded that Badenock could show neither bad faith nor
   prejudice. Taken together, the district court ruled that Badenock’s pre-
   indictment delay did not violate his constitutional or statutory rights.
          On appeal, Badenock contests that ruling. Even so, his opening brief
   discusses only Sixth Amendment issues and cites only Sixth Amendment
   authority. Despite Badenock’s framing of the issues, the district court
   correctly analyzed Badenock’s challenge under the Fifth Amendment Due
   Process Clause. United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 788 (1977) (holding
   that “the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment . . . is wholly
   irrelevant” when considering “preindictment delay”); United States v.
   Avants, 367 F.3d 433, 441 (5th Cir. 2004) (analyzing whether a pre-
   indictment delay violates due process). And because Badenock does not
   address the merits or basis of the district court’s ruling, the result “is the
   same as if he had not appealed [the] judgment” at all. Brinkmann v. Abner,
   813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th
   393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021) (“A party forfeits an argument . . . by failing to
   adequately brief the argument on appeal.”). As a result, Badenock raises no

                                          2
Case: 21-20468   Document: 00517062757       Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                              No. 21-20468

   viable issue on appeal, and the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                   3