From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Mwangi

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Feb 18, 2010
CRIMINAL FILE NO. 1:09-CR-107-TWT (N.D. Ga. Feb. 18, 2010)

Opinion

CRIMINAL FILE NO. 1:09-CR-107-TWT.

February 18, 2010


ORDER


This is a criminal action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 60] of the Magistrate Judge denying the Defendant's Motions for Leave to File Motions to Dismiss [Doc. 36, 45, 50-53]. The Defendant has not shown good cause for failure to file the motions prior to the April 9, 2009 deadline. The Defendant is now on his fourth attorney. He is not excused from complying with the pretrial motions deadline because he allegedly told one of his prior attorneys to file a motion to dismiss the indictment. The record shows that his attorneys repeatedly told counsel for the government that the Defendant intended to plead guilty. The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in denying these motions as untimely. Alternatively, the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 36] for Violation of Speedy Trial Act is DENIED on the merits. The indictment charges separate and distinct offenses from those contained in the initial complaint. Even if the complaint had been dismissed with prejudice, the government would have been entitled to proceed on the current indictment. See United States v. Derose, 74 F.3d 1177, 1184 (11th Cir. 1996). The Defendant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation are without merit. The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the judgment of the Court.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Mwangi

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Feb 18, 2010
CRIMINAL FILE NO. 1:09-CR-107-TWT (N.D. Ga. Feb. 18, 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Mwangi

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JOHN MWANGI, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

Date published: Feb 18, 2010

Citations

CRIMINAL FILE NO. 1:09-CR-107-TWT (N.D. Ga. Feb. 18, 2010)

Citing Cases

United States v. Wheeler

. . . There must be some indication that the pretrial disclosure of the disputed evidence would have enabled…

United States v. Royal

The Government is therefore only required to disclose material under Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i) if it enables a…