25 F.4th 766
10th Cir.2022Background
- Defendant Michael Black was arrested in Missouri and indicted in both the Western District of Missouri (Missouri charges) and the District of Kansas (Kansas charges).
- Black requested a Rule 20 transfer of the Kansas prosecution to the Western District of Missouri to enter a guilty plea; the District of Kansas transmitted the file and marked its Kansas docket "terminated," and W.D. Mo. opened a docket for the Kansas charges.
- At arraignment in W.D. Mo. on April 30, 2018, Black pleaded not guilty to the Kansas charges; Rule 20(c) required return of the papers to the original district after a not-guilty plea, so W.D. Mo. returned the case to Kansas (papers transmitted Nov. 15, 2018).
- Black pleaded guilty and was sentenced on the Missouri charges (plea accepted Dec. 18, 2018; sentencing Mar. 6, 2019); he first appeared in Kansas on Mar. 22, 2019.
- Black moved to dismiss the Kansas indictment under the Speedy Trial Act; the district court denied the motion. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held the Rule 20 transfer made the Kansas charges "pending" in W.D. Mo., so the speedy-trial clock began on April 30, 2018, and exceeded 70 non-excludable days; the court reversed and remanded to determine dismissal with or without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Black) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 20 transfer makes the charges "pending" in the transferee district for §3161(c) purposes | Transfer conveys control; W.D. Mo. obtained authority to dispose of the case, so charges were pending there | Transfer is partial; charges remained pending in Kansas and only Kansas could try the case | Majority: Transfer was complete; charges were pending in W.D. Mo. after docketing there, so §3161(c) was triggered by the W.D. Mo. appearance |
| Whether Black’s April 30, 2018 arraignment in W.D. Mo. constituted an ‘‘appearance before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending’’ starting the 70‑day clock | Arraignment in transferee was an appearance in the court where charges were pending | An ‘‘appearance’’ should be measured by the trial court with authority to try the case; only Kansas could try the case | Held: The arraignment was an appearance in the court where the charges were pending (W.D. Mo.), so the clock started April 30, 2018 |
| Whether time between W.D. Mo.’s acceptance of the Missouri plea and Black’s first Kansas appearance (Dec 18–Mar 22) was excludable under §3161(h)(1) as delay from "other proceedings concerning the defendant" | Majority assumed those days non‑excludable for purposes of resolving the appeal because the government raised the §3161(h)(1) argument for the first time on appeal | Government argued most of that period was excludable as delay caused by Missouri proceedings | Court declined to resolve on that new ground (not raised below); assumed days non‑excludable and concluded >70 days elapsed; concurring judge would reject the government's new claim on the merits |
| Whether the district court’s denial of the Speedy Trial Act motion should be affirmed | Black: trial violated the Act because >70 non‑excludable days elapsed from first appearance in the court where charges were pending | Gov’t: if the clock started in Kansas, or if exclusions apply, no statutory violation; also raised policy concerns about Rule 20 transfers | Held: Reversed — Speedy Trial Act violation; remanded to district court to determine dismissal with or without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (context: statutory interpretation and giving effect to every clause)
- Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (textualist support for reading indefinite article as indicating completeness)
- Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir.) (transfer divests original court of authority in civil context)
- In re Briscoe, 976 F.2d 1425 (D.C. Cir.) (paper-file transfer conveys authority in criminal context)
- United States v. Khan, 822 F.2d 451 (4th Cir.) (Rule 20 shifts subject-matter authority to transferee for narrow purpose)
- United States v. Young, 814 F.2d 392 (7th Cir.) (out-of-circuit authority discussing Rule 20 and Speedy Trial Act, treated as unpersuasive)
- United States v. Wickham, 30 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir.) (out-of-circuit Rule 20/S.T.A. precedent, treated as unpersuasive)
- United States v. Sutton, 862 F.3d 547 (6th Cir.) (addressed different Speedy Trial Act provision; footnote cited by government)
- United States v. Kreuger, 809 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir.) (on following or declining out-of-circuit precedent)
- Lightfoot v. United States, 327 F.2d 207 (10th Cir.) (defendant may waive venue/right to be tried in a particular district)