United States v. Javier Trujillo-Molina
678 F. App'x 335
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2014 ICE investigated Javier Trujillo‑Molina after Facebook posts suggested he possessed firearms; agents seized a pistol, shotgun, and ammunition and a federal grand jury indicted him in August 2015 for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A).
- Trujillo‑Molina had entered the U.S. circa 1997 and later received Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) relief and employment authorization.
- The district court set a September 21, 2015 deadline for pretrial motions; Trujillo‑Molina filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for a continuance on October 20, 2015—after the deadline—arguing his DACA status meant he was not unlawfully present.
- In the continuance motion he explained a changed litigation strategy tied to planned voluntary departure and an intended marriage to a U.S. citizen (which later fell through); he also noted DHS declined to renew his DACA renewal in September 2015.
- The district court denied the untimely motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3), finding Trujillo‑Molina failed to show good cause for the late filing and that changed litigation strategy and the thwarted marriage did not excuse delay.
- Trujillo‑Molina pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial of the untimely motion; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, reviewing the district court’s good‑cause finding for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying an untimely Rule 12(b)(3) motion for failure to show "good cause" | Trujillo‑Molina: late filing excused by changed circumstances (failed marriage plan, DHS non‑renewal of DACA) and merits that DACA status precludes § 922(g)(5)(A) prosecution | Government: defendant knew the facts and theory earlier; strategic choice to delay does not constitute good cause; no adequate explanation for delay | Court: No abuse of discretion; change in litigation strategy and unexplained delay do not satisfy good cause; denial affirmed |
| Whether the district court erred by not fully addressing the DACA‑based merits after finding no good cause | Trujillo‑Molina: merits (DACA status) should be reached because they would negate the indictment | Government: court permissibly declined to reach merits once good cause lacking; district court considered context sufficiently | Court: Proper to deny untimely motion without full merits analysis when movant fails to show good cause; decline was not error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Soto, 794 F.3d 635 (6th Cir. 2015) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard applies when district court finds facts on good‑cause for untimely Rule 12 motions)
- United States v. Walden, 625 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2010) (good cause requires some legitimate explanation for late filing)
- United States v. Edmond, 815 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 2016) (good‑cause analysis often requires factual development and prejudice inquiry)
- Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233 (1973) (prejudice is a relevant consideration when assessing late claims)
- United States v. Meda, 812 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2015) (clarifies review standards when claims are raised first on appeal versus raised late in district court)