US v. Ardila

65 Pages·2007·0.36 MB·English

05-5962-cr

To Be Argued By:
STEPHEN B. REYNOLDS
=========================================
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Docket No. 05-5962-cr
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
-vs-
JORGE ORLANDO ARDILA, aka Omar, aka The Old
Man, aka Cesar Tulio Zuniga-Pacheco, aka Jorge Builis,
aka Omar Gonzalez, aka Angel Rivera,
Defendant-Appellant.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
========================================
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
========================================
KEVIN J. O’CONNOR
United States Attorney
District of Connecticut
STEPHEN B. REYNOLDS
Assistant United States Attorney
WILLIAM J. NARDINI
Assistant United States Attorney (of counsel)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Statement of Jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Statement of Issues Presented for Review.. . . . . . . . . . x
Preliminary Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Case.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Statement of Facts and Proceedings
Relevant to this Appeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Facts of the Offense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Procedural History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Summary of Argument.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Argument.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
I. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its
Broad Discretion in the Conduct of Trial When
It Denied the Defendant’s Belated Request for
a Continuance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

A. Relevant Facts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B. Governing Law and Standard of Review. . . . . 31
C. Discussion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
II. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion
When It Denied the Defendant’s Request to
Withdraw His Oral and Written Waivers of the
Speedy Trial Act’s Thirty-Day Time Period
Before Proceeding to Trial on a Superseding
Indictment.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

A. Relevant Facts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B. Governing Law and Standard of Review. . . . . 37
1. Speedy Trial Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2. Withdrawals of Speedy Trial Act
Waivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
C. Discussion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1. The Thirty-Day Waiting Period
Established by § 3161(c)(2) Was
Not Reset by the Second Superseding
Indictment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2. Assuming Arguendo That the Thirty-Day
Waiting Period Was Reset, the District
Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in
Denying Ardila’s Request to Withdraw
His Waivers.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
ii
Conclusion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Certification per Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C)
Addendum
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
PURSUANT TO “BLUE BOOK” RULE 10.7, THE GOVERNMENT’S CITATION OF
CASES DOES NOT INCLUDE “CERTIORARI DENIED” DISPOSITIONS THAT ARE
MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD.
Blackledge v. Allison,
431 U.S. 63 (1977).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Blakely v. Washington,
542 U.S. 961 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 27
Morris v. Slappy,
461 U.S. 1 (1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Ungar v. Sarafite,
376 U.S. 575 (1964).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
United States ex rel. Curtis v. Zelker,
466 F.2d 1092 (2d Cir. 1972).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 47
United States v. Angiulo,
497 F.2d 440 (1st Cir. 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
United States v. Arena,
180 F.3d 380 (2d Cir. 1999).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 38
United States v. Bein,
728 F.2d 107 (1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 35
iv
United States v. Bentvena,
319 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1963).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
United States v. Beverly,
5 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 38
United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
United States v. Cusack,
229 F.3d 344 (2d Cir. 2000).. . . . . . . . . . . 32, 35, 38
United States v. Edwards,
101 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 38
United States v. Estrada,
320 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2000).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
United States v. Estrada,
430 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 2005),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1637 (2006). . . . . . . . . . . . 2
United States v. Flores,
501 F.2d 1356 (2d Cir. 1974).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
United States v. Gonzalez,
970 F.2d 1095 (2d Cir. 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
United States v. Gregg,
463 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). ....... 40
v
United States v. Gregory,
245 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2001).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
United States v. Hernandez,
242 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2001).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
United States v. Holmen,
586 F.2d 322 (4th Cir. 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
United States v. Hurtado,
47 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
United States v. Jones,
455 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2006),
cert. denied, 75 U.S.L.W. 3437 (Feb. 20, 2007). . . 2
United States v. Juncal,
245 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2001).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
United States v. King,
762 F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 38
United States v. Mauro,
80 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
United States v. Pascarella,
84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996).. . . . . . . . . . 31, 32, 34, 38
United States v. Rojas-Contreras,
474 U.S. 231 (1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
vi
United States v. Schmidt,
373 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
United States v. Stewart,
198 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
United States v. Yagid,
528 F.2d 962 (2d Cir. 1976).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
United States v. Yousef,
327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
United States v. Yu,
285 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
STATUTES
18 U.S.C. § 3161. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
18 U.S.C. § 3162. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18 U.S.C. § 3164. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18 U.S.C. § 3231. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
21 U.S.C. § 841. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 9, 10
21 U.S.C. § 846. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 9, 10
28 U.S.C. § 1291. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
vii
RULES
Fed. R. App. P. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
viii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The district court (Alan H. Nevas, J.) had subject
matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. The judgment
of conviction entered on October 26, 2005. (DA 137).1
The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), on November 1, 2005 (DA 17), and
this Court has appellate jurisdiction over his challenge to
his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
1 References to the Defendant-Appellant’s Appendix are
designated as (“DA ”); and to the Government’s Appendix
as (“GA ”).
ix