U.S. v. Vega, 06-1031.

• Decision Date: 23 February 2006
• Docket Number: No. 06-1031.,06-1031.
• Citation: 438 F.3d 801
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus VEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

438 F.3d 801

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus VEGA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-1031.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted January 5, 2006.

Decided February 23, 2006^*.

Edmond E. Chang, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Andrea E. Gambino, Gambino & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before COFFEY, KANNE, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

WOOD, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal, we must decide which district court is the proper one to review conditions imposed on an individual who is charged with a crime in one district, but who is apprehended and arraigned in a different district. Relying on the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), the district court concluded that the answer is the place where the charges are pending — a conclusion that required it to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. We too read the statute that way, and we therefore affirm.

Jesus Vega was charged in the Eastern District of Virginia with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine. After the Virginia court issued a warrant for Vega's arrest, the police eventually caught up with him in Chicago. Upon his arrest, they took him before a magistrate judge in the Northern District of Illinois to answer charges contained in an "Affidavit of Indictment in Removal Proceedings." Magistrate Judge Keys of that court held a detention hearing, determined that with proper conditions Vega would appear in Virginia, and granted him release on bond.

At the government's request, Judge Keys stayed the release order while the government moved for review in the Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Ellis of the Virginia district court entered a temporary stay of the release order and ordered that Vega be transported to the Eastern District of Virginia for a detention hearing. Vega then filed in the Northern District of Illinois an "Emergency Motion for Immediate Release and Stay of Removal Order Pending Release." Judge St. Eve dismissed Vega's motion for lack of jurisdiction and Vega appeals.

The only question before this court is whether Magistrate Judge Keys's release order should be reviewed in the Northern District of Illinois or in the Eastern District of Virginia. The governing statute reads in relevant part:

(a) Review of a release order.—If a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a judge of a court having original jurisdiction over the offense and other than a Federal appellate court—

(1) the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release; and

(2) the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense a motion for amendment of the conditions of release.

18 U.S.C. § 3145(a). The statute allows for review of the order by either party, and it has this to say about where the review must be sought: "the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation or amendment of the order." Id. The question before us is whether the phrase "the court having original jurisdiction" limits review only to the court where the charges are actually pending, or if (as Vega argues) it allows review in any federal court that has jurisdiction over federal crimes.

The problem with Vega's suggestion is that it effectively reads the contested phrase out of the statute. All federal district courts have jurisdiction over federal crimes, thanks to 18 U.S.C. § 3231; Vega's reading leaves the words "the court having original jurisdiction" with no purpose at all to serve. Reading the phrase as a limitation, as we must for it to serve any useful function, it can only mean the court where charges are pending. Perhaps it would have been preferable as a drafting matter to have used statutory language that mirrors the formula used in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See, e.g., Rule 5(c)(3)(D) (magistrate judge must transfer defendant to "district where the offense was allegedly committed" after making certain findings); Rule 5.1(b) (defendant may elect to have preliminary hearing conducted in "district where prosecution is pending"). Even without this congruence, however, the phrase makes sense only as a limitation of review to the court where charges are pending. See United States v. Torres, 86 F.3d 1029, 1031 (11th Cir.1996) ("The plain language of section 3145 dictates that the district court with original jurisdiction over the offense, i.e., the prosecution district . . . is the only proper one to review the order in question.").

Even if we thought that the statutory language was ambiguous, we would resolve any such ambiguity in favor of requiring review in the district court where the prosecution...