United States v. Jimmie White
920 F.3d 1109
6th Cir.2019Background
- Defendant White was arrested on May 2, 2013; the government filed a complaint April 29, 2013, and a grand jury indicted him June 4, 2013 (33 days after arrest including excluded days).
- Parties entered a stipulation (filed May 17, 2013) and a magistrate ordered exclusion of May 23–June 7, 2013, while they engaged in preindictment plea negotiations.
- White moved to dismiss the indictment as a Speedy Trial Act violation; the district court denied the motion, a jury convicted White, and this Court originally affirmed.
- White sought certiorari raising that Bloate v. United States undermined Sixth Circuit precedent treating preindictment plea negotiations as automatically excludable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1).
- The Solicitor General conceded error; the Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded for reconsideration in light of that concession.
- On remand this panel holds Bloate abrogates Dunbar and Bowers, but affirms the conviction because (1) White cannot satisfy plain-error review/forfeiture, and (2) alternatively, the two-week period was properly excluded as an ends-of-justice continuance under § 3161(h)(7).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (White) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preindictment plea negotiations are automatically excludable under § 3161(h)(1) | Bloate shows automatic exclusion applies only when a subparagraph literally covers the delay; preindictment negotiations precede any court consideration of a proposed plea and thus are not automatically excluded | Previously argued they were automatically excludable under circuit precedent; conceded error before Supreme Court that Bloate forecloses automatic exclusion | Court: Bloate abrogates Dunbar/Bowers; preindictment plea negotiations are not automatically excludable under § 3161(h)(1) |
| Whether White preserved the Bloate-based § 3161(h)(1) challenge | White contends the issue was raised sufficiently in his Speedy Trial Act motion | Government: White forfeited the Bloate argument by not raising it below; review limited to plain-error | Court: White forfeited; plain-error review applies and fails because prior circuit precedent made the issue not ‘‘plain’’ at the time of the district court decision |
| Whether the magistrate/district court’s exclusion satisfied § 3161(h)(7)’s on-the-record findings requirement | White argues the magistrate’s order and stipulation lack the court’s independent, sufficient on-the-record findings required by Zedner and Sixth Circuit precedent | Government: Even if (h)(1) does not apply, the parties’ stipulation + magistrate’s order suffice to show the court adopted the reasons and the short, defined two-week continuance served the ends of justice | Court: Alternatively affirms — the magistrate’s order (with the attached stipulation) and context supplied adequate on-the-record findings for a limited two-week ends-of-justice exclusion under § 3161(h)(7) |
| Whether plain error occurred warranting relief despite forfeiture | White: Bloate made the error clear under current law and affected his substantial rights | Government: Circuit precedent at the time foreclosed a finding of plain error; district court followed binding law | Court: No plain error — prior circuit precedent commanded the result at the time, so White cannot meet plain-error standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (2010) (time to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excludable under § 3161(h)(1); specific subparagraph controls)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006) (ends-of-justice continuances require on-the-record findings; defendant cannot prospectively waive Speedy Trial Act protections)
- United States v. Dunbar, 357 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2004) (held preindictment plea negotiations automatically excludable under § 3161(h)(1); abrogated by Bloate)
- United States v. Bowers, 834 F.2d 607 (6th Cir. 1987) (earlier circuit precedent treating plea-related delay as excludable under § 3161(h)(1); abrogated)
- United States v. Mathurin, 690 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2012) (analogous circuit decision applying Bloate reasoning and distinguishing court consideration of a proposed plea from preindictment negotiations)