United States v. Seals
450 F. App'x 769
10th Cir.2011Background
- Seals seeks reversal of his conviction claiming a Speedy Trial Act violation.
- He did not preserve the specific appellate argument; the district court previously granted a continuance and excluded time.
- From arraignment to Feb. 10, 2010, 63 speedy-trial days elapsed, satisfying the Act up to that point.
- Feb. 9, 2010, notice of an alibi witness was filed; Feb. 10, 2010, a superseding indictment added a new count.
- The district court continued the trial to June 14, 2010, citing ends-of-justice reasons under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and related discovery needs.
- The court affirms because Seals waived his challenge by not raising and preserving it below, and the Act limits review of unpreserved issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Seals preserved his Speedy Trial Act challenge | Seals argues the district court erred in not counting time excluded | The district court's ends-of-justice ruling was properly based on needs to prepare and respond to alibi and new charge | Waived; not preserved for review. |
| Whether the ends-of-justice exception justified the delay | The new charge and alibi did not change the case materially | Ends-of-justice justification supported by need for discovery and response | Not reached on appeal due to waiver; but ends-of-justice may be valid if properly preserved. |
| Whether the district court’s Toombs-related argument was properly raised | Seals asserted Toombs-based reasoning for extending the clock | Toombs argument was not properly raised or developed below | Not preserved; cannot be reviewed. |
| Whether waiver bars review of Speedy Trial Act issues on appeal | N/A | Waiver under 18 U.S.C. §3162(a)(2) precludes review | Affirmative, review barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (U.S. 2006) (exclusions to computation of speedy-trial time; burden on defendant to show violations)
- Toombs, United States v., 574 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2009) (ends-of-justice determinations; standard for adequacy of findings)
- Gomez v. United States, 67 F.3d 1515 (10th Cir. 1995) (waiver/forfeiture rule for Speedy Trial Act arguments not raised below)
- O’Connor, United States v., 656 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2011) (preservation of arguments; pretrial motion requirements)
- Banks v. United States, 451 F.3d 721 (10th Cir. 2006) (illustrates waiver/forfeiture principles in Speedy Trial Act)