United States v. Ferreira
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23765
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ferreira was charged Sept. 13, 2005 with conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in the federal case.
- At the time, he was in state custody in Georgia on unrelated charges; the government sought writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to bring him to Tennessee.
- A second superseding indictment was filed Oct. 12, 2005; a second writ was sought Oct. 21, 2005, and a writ was issued for Ferreira’s appearance.
- Ferreira was transferred between Georgia facilities, and the U.S. Marshals’ notification of transfer was misplaced, delaying the federal proceedings.
- Detainers were lodged in 2006–2007; in 2008 Ferreira sought speedy-trial relief, and the district court held the IADA violated but dismissed the indictment without prejudice.
- In 2009 a new one-count indictment was filed; Ferreira pled guilty under a conditional plea, and the district court sentenced him to 110 months consecutive to his undischarged state term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the delay violate the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right? | Ferreira | Ferreira | Yes; four Barker factors show violation |
| Whether the Speedy Trial Act authorizes dismissal of the indictment due to delay | Ferreira | Ferreira | The district court erred; dismissal with prejudice required |
| Whether IADA violation warrants dismissal with prejudice or without prejudice | Ferreira | Ferreira | Indictment dismissed; prejudice to Ferreira affirmed under IADA standard |
| Concerning sentencing: should federal sentence run consecutively or concurrently to state term | Ferreira | Ferreira | District court's consecutive sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy-trial framework)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumption of prejudice for unjustified delays)
- United States v. Smith, 94 F.3d 204 (6th Cir.1996) (extreme delays may create prejudice; strong presumptions)
- United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233 (6th Cir.1994) (weight of government negligence in Barker analysis)
- United States v. Jackson, 473 F.3d 660 (6th Cir.2007) (three-year delay not per se prejudice; context matters)
- United States v. Brown, 169 F.3d 344 (6th Cir.1999) (five years can trigger prejudice; depends on negligence)
- United States v. Erenas-Luna, 560 F.3d 772 (8th Cir.2009) (three-year delay with government negligence can be prejudicial)
- United States v. Ingram, 446 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir.2006) (two-year delay can support prejudice finding)
- Dixon v. White, 210 Fed.Appx. 498 (6th Cir.2007) (unpublished; rapid speedy-trial relief in prolonged delay)
- United States v. Schreane, 331 F.3d 548 (6th Cir.2003) (prejudice definition under Barker)