U.S. v. Severdija, 82-5496

Decision Date23 January 1984
Docket NumberNo. 82-5496,82-5496
Citation723 F.2d 791
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nikolas SEVERDIJA, Luis Alfonso Marquez-Brito, Juan Israel Hernandez-Linares, Reyes Ruiz Valdez, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., Jon May, Robert J. Bondi, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

Linda L. Carroll, Miami, Fla., for Nikolas Severdija.

Hugh J. Behan, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Miami, Fla., for Luis Alfonso Marquez-Brito.

Kathleen Hamilton, Coral Gables, Fla., for Juan Israel Hernandez-Linares.

Paul M. Korchin, Miami, Fla., for Reyes Ruiz Valdez.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before RONEY, HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

RONEY, Circuit Judge:

In this case the Government appeals the district court's dismissal with prejudice of an indictment against four defendants because of a delay in trial which was held to violate the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Secs. 3161-3174. We reverse the dismissal and remand the case for trial because, taking into consideration the number of days properly excludable for computation purposes, the 70-day speedy trial period had not expired at the time the motion was granted.

The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3161(c)(1), requires that a defendant be tried within 70 days of the filing of the information or indictment, or of the date the defendant first appears before a judicial officer of the court in which the charge is pending, whichever occurs later. In this case the indictment triggered the 70-day speedy trial period. The four defendants were arrested aboard a vessel on or about October 27, 1981, and appeared before a judicial officer on November 1. On November 9, 1981, they were indicted by a grand jury for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and conspiracy. 21 U.S.C.A. Secs. 955a(a), 955c; 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2. The indictment was later than the appearance before a judicial officer, so the period begins with the November 9 indictment.

The 70-day period does not mean 70 consecutive calendar days, however. The Speedy Trial Act sets forth certain periods that are to be excluded in computing the time within which the trial must be commenced. The parties differ essentially on whether certain pretrial motions and proceedings were excludable. Section 3161(h) provides that periods of delay resulting from or reasonably attributable to the following events relevant to a proceeding are excluded from the computation:

"other proceedings concerning the defendant ..." 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3161(h)(1);

"any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion," id. Sec. 3161(h)(1)(F);

"any period, not to exceed thirty days, during which any proceeding concerning the defendant is actually under advisement by the court," id. Sec. 3161(h)(1)(J);

"when the defendant is joined for trial with a codefendant as to whom the time for trial has not run and no motion for severance has been granted," id. Sec. 3161(h)(7).

These statutory exclusions must be applied to the events in this case,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • U.S. v. Mentz
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 22 February 1988
    ...excluded. B Although the speedy trial clock began to run on September 9, the day of indictment is excluded. United States v. Severdija, 723 F.2d 791, 793 (11th Cir.1984); Yunis, 723 F.2d at 797. This is also true for the day of arraignment on September 18. United States v. Monroe, 833 F.2d ......
  • United States v. Browne
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands
    • 18 March 2008
    ...22, 2007, marked the beginning of the 70–day trial clock in this matter. See18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1); see also United States v. Severdija, 723 F.2d 791, 792 (11th Cir.1984) (explaining that “the date of the indictment is not counted as one of the 70 days allowed by the Act.”). However, as exp......
  • United States v. Hamerling, Civil Action No. 2:15-mj-7010
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 19 August 2015
    ...requests for laboratory reports to implied requests for a new trial date." (internal citations omitted)); United States v. Severdija, 723 F.2d 791, 793 (11th Cir. 1984) (finding that a motion to reduce bond constitutes excludable delay resulting from any pretrial motion). It is clear, then,......
  • U.S. v. Lattany
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 17 August 1992
    ...on other grounds, 761 F.2d 292, 294 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 852, 106 S.Ct. 153, 88 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985); United States v. Severdija, 723 F.2d 791, 793 (11th Cir.1984) (motion to reduce bond falls within § (h)(1)(F)). In calculating includable time, both the date on which an event o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT