United States v. Resendiz-Guevara
145 F. Supp. 3d 1128
M.D. Fla.2015Background
- Defendant Jesus Resendiz-Guevara was indicted for illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326) after an ICE referral; he was released on conditions and a $50,000 bond by a magistrate judge.
- ICE placed a detainer, took custody, and ultimately deported Defendant while the criminal prosecution was pending; Defendant never appeared at trial and remained in Mexico.
- The Government did not appeal the magistrate judge’s release order within the 10-day window and later argued DHS acted lawfully in deporting Defendant.
- District Court ordered the Government to show cause why the indictment should not be dismissed; parties submitted supplemental briefs.
- Magistrate Judge Mirando recommended dismissal without prejudice, concluding the Government effectively abandoned the prosecution, constitutional rights (Fifth and Sixth Amendments) and Speedy Trial Act protections were impaired, and the court could use supervisory power to dismiss.
- District Judge Steele adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the indictment without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Resendiz-Guevara) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment should be dismissed because Defendant was deported during prosecution | Deportation amounted to abandonment of prosecution and violated due process, Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and Speedy Trial Act; no lesser remedy available | DHS acted lawfully; no prosecutorial misconduct; court lacks authority to interrupt removal proceedings | Court held dismissal without prejudice appropriate: deportation impaired constitutional and trial rights and amounted to abandonment |
| Whether Executive Branch could defer removal or prevent departure | DHS and USAO initially cooperated; government could have sought a stay or used departure-control to prevent removal | DHS was required/authorized to remove under INA and could proceed with removal | Court found Government failed to show it lacked ability to prevent removal; Executive Branch elected deportation over prosecution |
| Whether Speedy Trial Act exclusions apply when Government causes unavailability | Exclusions do not apply where Government causes defendant’s unavailability; delays attributable to deportation are not excludable | Delays may be excluded under statutory provisions for unavailability or pending proceedings | Court held delays caused by Government deportation should not be excluded; Speedy Trial rights impaired |
| Whether supervisory power permits dismissal absent prosecutorial misconduct or demonstrated prejudice | Court may use supervisory power to protect constitutional rights and deter or remedy misconduct; prejudice shown by inability to prepare defense | Government contends dismissal is inappropriate absent prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice | Court concluded supervisory dismissal permissible here and that Defendant suffered prejudice (inability to consult counsel, prepare defense, appear at trial) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Powell, 628 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir.) (district judge may accept, reject, or modify magistrate judge R&R; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir.) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo even without objection)
- United States v. Santos-Flores, 794 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.) (risk of flight must involve volition; involuntary ICE removal does not equate to flight)
- United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (U.S.) (to show due process violation from deportation of witness, defendant must show evidence lost would be material and favorable)
- United States v. Saintil, 753 F.2d 984 (11th Cir.) (deportation of a witness raises constitutional claims only if defendant shows the deported witness would give material and favorable testimony)
- United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (U.S.) (federal courts may use supervisory powers to formulate procedural rules and remedies to protect rights and deter illegal conduct)
- United States v. McKenzie, 678 F.2d 629 (5th Cir.) (discussed in Eleventh Circuit precedent regarding supervisory dismissal standards)
- United States v. Stafford, 697 F.2d 1368 (11th Cir.) (Speedy Trial Act exclusions for motions and related delays)