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. Young

United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division

February 9, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
MARIO TAVAROUS YOUNG, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          JAMES LAWRENCE KING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This cause comes before the Court on defendant Mario Tavarous Young's post-remand Motion to Dismiss Indictment with Prejudice, DE 106, in which the defendant has asked this Court to dismiss the indictment against him with prejudice based on a Speedy Trial Act violation. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice is denied, and the indictment in this case is instead dismissed without prejudice.

         I. Procedural History

         On March 4, 2014, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida returned a three-count indictment charging defendant Mario Tavarous Young with: possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) (Count 1); possessing a firearm after previously having been convicted of a felony offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1) (Count 2); and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (Count 3). DE 1. As a result of these charges, the defendant faced a statutory maximum sentence of life imprisonment on Counts 2 and 3 and twenty years on Count 1. See id; see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(c) & 924(e); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(C).

         On March 7, 2014, this Court entered its Order Setting Trial Date in which it set the trial in this case for the two-week trial period commencing on June 23, 2014. DE 3. Among other things, that Order specifically advised the parties as follows:

ALL PARTIES SHALL TAKE NOTICE THAT THE SCHEDULED TRIAL DATE IN THE ABOVE-STYLED CASE MAY BE SET BEYOND THE TIME LIMITS OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT. THE COURT SHALL DEEM SPEEDY TRIAL TO BE WAIVED UNLESS THE PARTIES OTHERWISE NOTIFY THE COURT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER THAT THEY OBJECT TO THIS TRIAL DATE AND INSIST, IN WRITING, ON A TRIAL DATE WITHIN THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT DEADLINES.

         DE 3 at 1. Neither of the parties ever objected within that ten-day period or within the Speedy Trial Act period to the scheduled trial date nor requested a trial within 70 days of the defendant's indictment or appearance in this case.

         On March 14, 2014, the defendant was arrested in this case and was brought before the court for his initial appearance. DE 7, 8, 18. At that time, the government requested that the defendant be detained pending his trial, and the defendant's arraignment and pre-trial detention hearing were accordingly scheduled for March 19, 2014. DE 8, 9.

         On March 19, 2014, the defendant appeared before Magistrate Judge Torres, who arraigned the defendant on the charged offenses and, following a pre-trial detention hearing, granted the government's motion that the defendant be detained pending trial. DE 9, 10, 12; DE 22 at 3, 20.

         On June 11, 2014, the defendant, through counsel, filed an unopposed motion to continue the trial in this case. DE 23. In that motion, defense counsel reported that "Defendant's investigation of this case is ongoing and Defendant respectfully requests additional time so as to finish his investigation and complete his preparations for trial." DE 23 at 1. In addition, defense counsel reported scheduling conflicts (travel outside the State of Florida and a trial and two additional hearings in Key West) during both weeks of the scheduled two-week trial calendar.

         DE 23 at 1-2. The defense accordingly requested that the case "be continued for at least 30 days." DE 23 at 2.

         On June 12, 2014, this Court granted the defense motion for continuance and reset the trial for the trial period beginning on September 8, 2014. DE 24 at 1. In that Order, the Court again specifically advised the parties as follows:

ALL PARTIES SHALL TAKE NOTICE THAT THE SCHEDULED TRIAL DATE IN THE ABOVE-STYLED CASE MAY BE SET BEYOND THE TIME LIMITS OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT. THE COURT SHALL DEEM SPEEDY TRIAL TO BE WAIVED UNLESS THE PARTIES OTHERWISE NOTIFY THE COURT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER THAT THEY OBJECT TO THIS TRIAL DATE AND INSIST, IN WRITING, ON A TRIAL DATE WITHIN THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT DEADLINES.

         DE 24 at 1. Neither of the parties objected within that ten-day period nor ...


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.