United States v. Ladmarald Cates
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12086
7th Cir.2013Background
- Cates was convicted of depriving Lemons of civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242 after a trial where he admitted sex but contended it was consensual.
- The jury found aggravated sexual assault but no bodily injury, avoiding an enhanced sentence under § 242, and found no § 924(c) firearm casualty.
- Sentencing was originally set for April 11, 2012, but Cates sought new counsel; the court allowed withdrawal of trial counsel and appointed new counsel.
- A nunc pro tunc order dated April 27, 2012 appointed new counsel effective April 23, 2012; sentencing was rescheduled to June 29 and then moved to July 2 due to a government scheduling conflict.
- Two months after appointment, Cates’ new counsel filed motions, including an extension of time to file post-conviction motions, asserting excusable neglect under Rule 45(b)(1).
- The district court denied the extension on July 18, 2012; Cates was sentenced on July 30, 2012 to 288 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying an extension of time to file post-conviction motions under Rule 45. | Cates argues excusable neglect justified the extension due to new counsel’s inability to review the case promptly. | The district court correctly applied Pioneer factors and found no excusable neglect. | No abuse of discretion; extension denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (establishes equitable Pioneer factors for excusable neglect)
- United States v. Brown, 133 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 1998) ( weighs significance of reason for delay and other Pioneer factors)
- Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2006) (busy schedule alone not excusable neglect)
- In re Canopy Financial, Inc., 708 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2013) (emphasizes need for detailed showing under equity-based tests)
- United States v. Munoz, 605 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2010) (context for application of Pioneer in criminal Rule 33 motions)