United States v. Rodolpho Cruz, 681 F. App'x 819

DEA searched a Range Rover suspected of transporting cocaine and marijuana and found approximately $265,000 hidden in a compartment; Cruz was a passenger and used a false name.
Cruz was later indicted (Sept. 25, 2007) for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine; arrest occurred in March 2015 in California.
Cruz moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing a speedy-trial violation due to a seven-year delay between indictment and arrest.
The government presented evidence of efforts to locate Cruz and shown that Cruz used aliases to hinder identification; NCIC data and court records were relevant to timing.
The district court applied Barker v. Wingo’s four-factor test and denied the motion, finding Cruz caused part of the delay and there was no demonstrable actual prejudice.
Cruz pled guilty conditionally to Count One and preserved the right to appeal the denial of the speedy-trial motion; the sentence was 120 months’ imprisonment followed by 5 years’ supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the delay between indictment and arrest violated the Speedy Trial Right	Cruz argues the seven-year delay, aided by government negligence, violated Barker.	The government contends delay was presumptively prejudicial but explained by Cruz’s actions and pursuit efforts.	Affirmed; no violation found given Barker factors and lack of demonstrated actual prejudice
Whether Cruz’s conduct causing delay negated need to show actual prejudice	Cruz asserts government negligence plus delay removes requirement to show actual prejudice.	Government argues any negligence was minimal and Cruz contributed by false identification; prejudice not shown.	Held that Cruz’s conduct plus limited government negligence did not compel relief; no need to show particularized prejudice

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor speedy-trial test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (extensive government negligence can extinguish prejudice)
Ingram, 446 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2006) (government must justify pretrial delay; defendant culpability for delay considered)
Dunn, 345 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2003) (delay length triggers presumption of prejudice; factors determine its weight)
Clark, 83 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 1996) (negligence and delay require prejudice unless defendant acquiescent or rebutted by government)
Villarreal, 613 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2010) (clarifies weight of Barker factors and credibility of witnesses in speed-trial analysis)