United States v. Delfino De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177

Background

De Leon-Ramirez, a deported noncitizen, reentered the U.S.; ICE learned of his presence in May 2007 after a Chesterfield County arrest where he gave false identifying information and aliases.
He missed a scheduled county-court appearance in April 2007 (papers he signed listed a different date); a warrant issued and a fugitive detective sought assistance from ICE and U.S. Marshals.
Nine years later, after another arrest and a subsequent missed court date in May 2016, ICE opened a fugitive investigation and arrested him in 2017.
He was indicted for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; the government conceded the limitations period began in May 2007 but invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3290 (fugitive tolling) to preserve timeliness.
The magistrate judge found De Leon-Ramirez concealed himself with intent to avoid prosecution (aliases, false info, missed appearances); the district court adopted that report after stating it reviewed it de novo despite expressing reservations about the parties’ plea agreement.
De Leon-Ramirez appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss as time-barred; the Fourth Circuit reviewed the factual finding of flight for clear error and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	De Leon-Ramirez's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the five-year statute of limitations for §1326 began in May 2007 and expired before the 2017 indictment	Limitations lapsed in 2012 because clock started in May 2007	Clock started in May 2007 but was tolled under 18 U.S.C. §3290 because defendant was fleeing from justice	Court assumed May 2007 start; tolling applied, indictment timely
Whether §3290 requires proof of intent to evade prosecution (fugitive status)	Argues record does not show intent to evade; mere absence or calendaring error insufficient	Argues intent may be inferred from aliases, false info, missed appearances, and lack of contact	Court adopted intent-based test: fugitive tolling requires concealment with intent to avoid prosecution; intent may be inferred from conduct
Whether district court conducted required de novo review of magistrate judge’s report after objections	Argues district court failed to perform de novo review and appellate review should be limited	Government asserts district court stated it reviewed report de novo and its order reflects that review	Court presumed compliance with de novo review despite concerns and proceeded to merits
Whether the factual finding that De Leon-Ramirez was "fleeing from justice" is clearly erroneous	Contends court’s inference from missed dates is weak (signed papers gave different date) and later missed 2016 date postdates limitations	Points to aliases, false ID, two missed appearances, warrants, fugitive detective involvement, and lack of contact to support intent to flee	Court found multiple facts supporting intent and held the factual finding not clearly erroneous; affirmed dismissal denial

Key Cases Cited

Pendergast v. United States, 317 U.S. 412 (establishes limitations period begins when offense is complete)
Streep v. United States, 160 U.S. 128 (fugitive tolling requires flight with intent to avoid prosecution)
Ferebee v. United States, 295 F. 850 (4th Cir. 1924) (interpreting fugitive tolling where defendant concealed himself to evade arrest)
United States v. Greever, 134 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 1998) (adopts intent-based standard for §3290; concealment with intent to avoid prosecution)
United States v. Florez, 447 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2006) (collects factors courts may consider for fugitive tolling)
United States v. George, 971 F.3d 1113 (4th Cir. 1992) (district court’s duty to conduct de novo review of magistrate report after objections)
Schronce v. United States, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984) (explains district court’s supervisory responsibility over magistrate decisions)
Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (standard for reviewing factual findings for clear error)
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (discusses "definite and firm conviction" standard for factual-error review)