Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Rodriguez

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

August 28, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
GIMY JOSE RODRIGUEZ, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ROBERT D. MARIANI JUDGE.

         I. Introduction and Procedural History

         Presently before the Court is Defendant Gimy Jose Rodriguez's "Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial." (Doc. 251).

         On March 28, 2017, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant Rodriguez with the following violations: (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams and more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 (Count I); and (2) possession with intent to distribute 50 grams and more of methamphetamine and an unspecified amount of heroin in violation 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count II). Count I of the Indictment further charged four co-defendants in the conspiracy: Andrew Danko, Angela Haggerty, Jerrod Curtis, and Hector Delacruz. Each of these co-defendants has either pleaded guilty or has had the charge against him dismissed by the Court.

         Trial in the present action is scheduled to commence September 4, 2019. On August 22, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that "he was not brought to trial within the requisite seventy days as required by law in violation of the Speedy Trial Act and his Sixth Amendment rights" (Doc. 247, ¶ 14) and therefore requesting that this Court dismiss the indictment against him with prejudice. Defendant thereafter filed an "Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial" (Doc. 251) to "include additional periods of delay that are attributable to the Speedy Trial Act calculation and to clarify the Defendant's position concerning the computation of time for Speedy Trial purposes" [id. at ¶ 3). On August 26, 2019, the Defendant (Doc. 252) and the Government (Doc. 253) each filed a brief addressing Defendant's amended motion to dismiss.

         For the following reasons, the Court will deny Defendant's amended motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 251).

         II. Analysis

         On March 28, 2017, Defendant Gimy Jose Rodriguez was indicted on the charges of conspiracy to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (Doc. 1). On March 30, 2017, Defendant Rodriguez was arraigned by Magistrate Judge Mehalchick and entered a plea of not guilty. (Doc. 28). Thereafter, on April 3, 2017, this Court entered an Order directing all pre-trial motions by Defendant Rodriguez and co-defendants Danko, Haggerty, and Curtis be filed on or before May 3, 2017. (Doc. 40). Although an arrest warrant was issued for co-defendant Delacruz on March 28, 2017 (Doc. 8), he was not arrested until May 31, 2017, in the Southern District of New York (Doc. 53) and arraigned in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on June 23, 2017 (Docs. 58-60).

         The parties first dispute whether the time from March 30 to April 26, 2017 is excludable. However, although the parties set forth slightly differing rationales, the Government and Defendant Rodriguez agree that the time from April 26, 2017, through October 25, 2017, is excludable from the Speedy Trial calculations (Doc. 252, at 3; Doc. 253, at 9-13).

         Defendant Rodriguez asserts that the Speedy Trial clock then ran from October 25, 2017 to January 22, 2018. (Doc. 252, at 3). The Government acknowledges the Speedy Trial clock may have run for five days from October 26 to October 31, 2017. However, on October 31, 2017, co-defendant Haggerty filed a motion to continue her change of plea hearing and a motion for release (Docs. 106, 107). (Doc. 253, at 13). On November 1, 2017, the Court denied Haggerty's motion to continue her change of plea hearing and Haggerty therefore entered a plea of guilty that same day. (Docs. 109-111). The Government further acknowledges that the Speedy Trial clock then ran for 26 days from November 2, through November 27, 2017. (Doc. 253, at 15). On November 28, 2017, co-Defendant Delacruz filed a motion for pretrial release and a "motion for discovery" (Docs. 112, 114).[1] On December 18, 2017, the Court scheduled a detention hearing to be held on March 1, 2018 (Doc. 118).

         On January 22, 2018, Defendant Delacruz filed a motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions (Doc. 124), which was granted by this Court that same day (Doc. 125), extending the time to file pretrial motions until February 22, 2018. On February 21, 2018, Delacruz filed another motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions (Doc. 135), which was granted by this Court the following day (Doc. 137), permitting Defendant to file any pretrial motions on or before March 24, 2018. Defendant does not deny that this time is excludable for purposes of Speedy Trial calculations.

         On March 27, 2 018, the Government requested that the Court schedule trial in this matter in light of "the deadlines pertaining to all of the defendants hav[ing] passed." (Doc. 141). On April 3, 2018, the Court scheduled trial for Rodriguez and Curtis to begin July 31, 2018. (Doc. 147). Defendant contends that this scheduling Order "triggered the clock to begin running again for purposes of the Act." (Doc. 252, at 4). In the interim, on March 28, 2018, Defendant Delacruz filed a motion for leave to file pretrial motions nunc pro tunc (Doc. 143), which was thereafter granted by this Court (Doc. 145). On April 3, 2018, Delacruz filed his pre-trial motions (Doc. 146).

         On April 4, 2018, the Court denied Delacruz's motion for bail (Docs. 149, 150).

         On May 1, 2018, the Court deemed Delacruz's April 3, 2018 pre-trial motions to be withdrawn due his failure to file any brief in support of those pre-trial motions. (Doc. 153).

         On May 22, 2018, Defendant Rodriguez filed a "Motion for Clarification of Protective Order" (Doc. 157). The Government concedes that the Speedy Trial clock ran for 20 days from the Court's Order of May 1, 2018, and the time of Defendant's filing of a motion for clarification of the protective order. (Doc. 253, at 17).

         On June 13, 2018, the Court deemed Defendant's Motion for Clarification of Protective Order withdrawn for failure to file a brief in support of the motion. (Doc. 158). Thus, on June 15, 2018, Defendant filed an Amended Motion for Clarification of the Protective Order (Doc. 159). The Government acknowledges that one day ran for Speedy Trial purposes at that time (Doc. 235, at 18). The Court ruled on Defendant's motion for clarification on July 6, 2018. (Docs. 168, 169).

         On June 29, 2018, Defendant Rodriguez requested additional time to file motions in limine (Doc. 165), which this Court granted (Doc. 166). On July 6, 2018, the Government filed an unopposed motion to continue the trial of Gimy Jose Rodriguez. (Doc. 167). The Court granted this motion, re-scheduling trial to begin on October 2, 2018. (Doc. 170).

         Although the docket reflects a significant amount of activity on the part of Gimy Jose Rodriguez, certain co-defendants, and the Government after July 6, 2018, because Defendant Rodriguez does not assert that any time ran for purposes of the Speedy Trial calculations after June 29, 2018, and the Government does not point to any time after June 29, 2018, which this Court should consider, the Court will not engage in a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.