United States v. Jimenez-Mendez, 2:19-cr-00151-1

• Decision Date: 23 February 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2:19-cr-00151-1,2:19-cr-00151-1
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ABDIEL JIMENEZ-MENDEZ, Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ABDIEL JIMENEZ-MENDEZ, Defendant

No. 2:19-cr-00151-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

February 23, 2021

OPINION

Defendant Abdiel Jimenez-Mendez's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 204 - Denied

Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

The above-captioned action was initiated on March 13, 2019, when a sealed Indictment was filed against Defendant Abdiel Jimenez-Mendez, charging him and twelve co-defendants for their alleged involvement in an approximately ten-month-long conspiracy to distribute large quantities of fentanyl and heroin. The Indictment was unsealed later that month and Jimenez-Mendez was arraigned. In April 2019, before all the co-defendants had been arraigned, the Court granted a motion, unopposed by Jimenez-Mendez, to declare the case complex, for a specially listed trial date, and for an ends-of-justice continuance. The Order did not set a trial date. Jimenez-Mendez has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment as Violative of the Speedy Trial Act 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174, Pre-Pandemic Orders. ECF No. 204. For the reasons discussed below, there has been no violation of Defendant's rights under the Speedy Trial Act. The Motion to Dismiss is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

On March 13, 2019, a sealed Indictment was filed against Abdiel Jimenez-Mendez and twelve co-defendants: Luis Adames-Bruno, Jorge Miranda (a/k/a Noel Regalado-Rojas¹), Luiggi Regaldo-Castillo, Francisco Fernandez, Noel Lopez-Garcia, Joel Javier, Dustin Whitmore, Bunny Amalbert, Juan Rosa-Cruz, Marcus Bell, Abdael Fernandez, and Alex Leandry-Ocasio. See ECF No. 1. All Defendants were charged in Count One with conspiracy to distribute N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide ("fentanyl"), a Schedule II controlled substance, and heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C). Four hundred grams or more of fentanyl is attributed to Jimenez-Mendez for this conspiracy, which is alleged to have occurred between July 2017 and April 2018. The Indictment includes more than fifty paragraphs describing the overt acts and the manner and means of the drug trafficking conspiracy, of which Jimenez-Mendez is alleged to be the leader. The Indictment also includes numerous charges for specific incidents of distribution of controlled substances directly against Jimenez-Mendez and against other co-defendants. The Government asserts that if convicted nine Defendants face a mandatory minimum of ten years' imprisonment, three Defendants face a mandatory minimum of five years' imprisonment, and Jimenez-Mendez, a career offender, faces 360 months to life imprisonment under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. See Resp. 2, ECF No. 215.

The Indictment was unsealed on March 26, 2019. That day, Jimenez-Mendez and Co-Defendants Luis Adames-Bruno and Bunny Amalbert were arrested pursuant to bench warrants issued at the time of the Indictment and had their initial appearances. On March 29, 2019, theGovernment filed motions for pre-trial detention against all three.² See ECF Nos. 18-20. Two of the motions were granted that day when Jimenez-Mendez and Adames-Bruno were arraigned. The arraignment for Amalbert was continued until April 2, 2019, at which time the motion for pre-trial detention was granted. Co-Defendants Marcus Bell and Abdael Fernandez ("A. Fernandez") were also arraigned on April 2, 2019, and the Government's motion for pre-trial detention of A. Fernandez, ECF No. 28, was granted the same day it was filed. On April 4, 2019, Co-Defendant Francisco Fernandez ("F. Fernandez") was arraigned. Co-Defendant Alex Leandry-Ocasio was arraigned on April 8, 2019, and the Government's motion for pre-trial detention, ECF No. 50, was decided the same day it was filed. On April 11, 2019, Co-Defendant Noel Lopez-Garcia was arraigned.

On April 16, 2019, Amalbert³ filed a Motion to Continue Pretrial Filing Deadlines. Complex Mot., ECF No. 58 (seeking a ten-day extension because counsel needs additional time to prepare and analyze documents due to the complexity of the matter). On April 17, 2019, Jimenez-Mendez filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions. ECF No. 59. That Motion sought to extend the filing of pretrial motions due on April 16, 2019, because counsel "needs additional time to prepare and review the indictment and other documents obtained in this matter" and "is unable to complete pretrial motions without complete discovery in this complex matter." Counsel stated he "has been in contact with his client, Abdiel Jimenez-Mendez, who has no objection to this extension." Jimenez-Mendez's Motion did not request a specific length of an extension, nor did it ask the court to set a new pretrial motions deadline.Both motions were granted by Order dated April 17, 2019. ECF No. 61. The Court ordered that the "time to file pretrial motions for all Defendants in the above-captioned action is CONTINUED GENERALLY until all Defendants have been arraigned, after which time the Court will consult with counsel and issue a scheduling order setting, inter alia, pretrial motions deadlines and a specially listed trial date." The Order explained that it was being issued after consideration of the Order issued the same date "granting the Government's Motion for Complex Case Declaration and Special Listing continuing the case beyond the limits established by the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii)."

That Motion, ECF No. 60, was filed on April 17, 2019. The Government stated in its Motion for Complex Case Declaration and Special Listing that counsel for Jimenez-Mendez, as well as counsel for all other Co-Defendants in federal custody,⁴ did not oppose the Motion. In support of its requests, the Government asserted:

During the approximately 10-month investigation, there were thousands of man hours of surveillance, both physical and electronic, utilizing pole cameras, GPS and cell site simulator monitoring, as well as evidence from arrests and searches of vehicles and residences. There were also Title III wiretaps and extensions authorized on 7 cellular phones over a period of approximately 5 months. Discovery in this case is voluminous. There are approximately 4,000 hours of intercepted calls, thousands of text messages, and over ten thousand pages of affidavits, investigative reports, transcripts, and other record documentation.

[] The trial of this case is expected to involve numerous law enforcement and civilian witnesses, voluminous documentary and audio- and video- recordings evidence. The government's case in chief is expected to last approximately two weeks.

Id. at ¶ 1(b)-(c). The Court adopted the Government's proposed order, which requested that the trial be specially listed "after consultation with all counsel." ECF No. 62. In that Order, the Court found: "[t]he above-captioned case is so unusual and so complex due to the number ofdefendants, the nature of the prosecution, and the amount of evidence that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and the trial itself within the time limitations established by the Speedy Trial Act" and that "the ends of justice will be served by granting a continuance beyond the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act in the above-listed case. The ends of justice served by this Order outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial." It ordered, "pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii), that the above-captioned case is continued beyond the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act" and the case "will be specially listed for trial, after consultation with all counsel, on a date consistent with the above findings."

On May 2, 2019, the Government filed a discovery-related motion and a Motion to Impound the same. ECF Nos. 72-73. These motions were granted on May 7, 2019. ECF Nos. 79-80. Also on May 2, 2019, Co-Defendant Joel Javier was arraigned. On May 6, 2019, the Government filed a motion for pre-trial detention as to Co-Defendant Dustin Whitmore, ECF No. 78, which was granted at Whitmore's arraignment on May 10, 2019.

On May 8, 2019, Javier filed Motion for Extension of Time to File Pre-trial Motions. ECF No. 81 (seeking an unspecified length of extension because "Defendant cannot adequately identify, prepare, and file such motions, if any, without analyzing complete discovery and the evidence to be proffered against him"). The following day, the Court issued an Order granting Whitmore's Motion and generally continuing the time to file pretrial motions until all Defendants have been arraigned, at which time "a pretrial motions deadline will be set." ECF No. 82 (citing ECF Nos. 61-62). The Order specifically referenced the ends-of-justice continuance Order granting the Government's Motion for Complex Case Declaration and Special Listing continuingthe case beyond the limits established by the Speedy Trial Act, as well as the Order dated April 17, 2019, continuing the time to file pretrial motions until after all Defendants are arraigned.

On May 28, 2019, the Government filed a motion for pre-trial detention as to Co-Defendant Luiggi Regaldo-Castillo, ECF No. 90, which was granted at his arraignment the same day. On June 17, 2019, the Government filed a motion for pre-trial detention as to Co-Defendant Juan Rosa-Cruz. ECF No. 95. The motion was granted the following day when Rosa-Cruz was arraigned. By June 18, 2019, all charged Defendants in the above-captioned action had been arraigned except for Regalado-Rojas, who has not yet been apprehended.⁵

Amalbert filed a sealed motion on August 28, 2019, ECF No. 102, which was decided the following day. On October 25, 2019, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the Indictment without prejudice as to Regalado-Castillo, after determining that he had been misidentified. ECF No. 106. The motion was granted on October 28, 2019.

On...