United States v. Frater
495 F. App'x 878
10th Cir.2012Background
- Frater, a federal prisoner, sought a COA to challenge his §2255 denial; the district court denied relief and this court denied a COA.
- Indictment for conspiracy to distribute at least 153.4 kg of cocaine issued December 11, 2002; superseding indictment issued January 29, 2003.
- Frater fled the United States after indictment, lived for years abroad (England, Jamaica, UAE) with no UAE extradition treaty; he was ultimately arrested in London (April 2009) and extradited to the U.S. (September 2010 arraignment).
- Government monitored Frater’s overseas activities; a DEA warrant and tax lookout existed; Frater traveled openly under his own name during the period he was a fugitive.
- Frater pled guilty on June 16, 2010; sentenced to 120 months; he did not file a direct appeal; he filed a §2255 motion on June 13, 2011 alleging speedy-trial rights and ineffective assistance of counsel, which the district court denied; this court denied a COA and dismissed the matter.
- The issues presented concern the legality of the six-year delay between indictment and arrest under Barker factors, the effectiveness of defense counsel for failing to raise speedy-trial challenges, and whether an evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial violation under Barker factors | Frater argues delay violated Sixth Amendment rights. | District court found delay weighed against Frater and partially excludable due to UAE residence; no prejudice established. | No reversible error; Barker factors weighed against Frater; COA denied. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to move to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds; misadvice about timeliness and prejudice. | Merits of speedy-trial claim were weak; no reasonable probability of different outcome; counsel's performance not prejudicial. | No COA; Strickland prejudice not shown. |
| Evidentiary hearing requirement | District court should have held an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts. | Record fully confirms lack of entitlement; no disputed issues needing resolution. | No abuse of discretion; no evidentiary hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (speedy-trial inquiry factors)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (presumptive prejudice where delay is egregious)
- Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2009) (presumption of prejudice in extreme delays)
- Clingman v. United States, 288 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2002) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice analysis)
- Harms v. United States, 371 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2004) (Strickland prejudice framework applied)
- Rayborn v. Scully, 858 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1988) (public policy on arresting fugitives)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 596 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2010) (COA standards; substantial showing)