Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 3:22-CR-00034-KDB-DSC
12-20-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DONALD BOOKER, Defendant.
ORDER
Kenneth D. Bell, United States District Judge.
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant's pro se Motions to Dismiss and to Continue, (Doc. Nos. 55, 56). For the reasons briefly discussed below, the Court will deny the Motions.
First, the Court will deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss because it relies solely on the legal theories espoused by “sovereign citizens.” As this Court as already ruled, these theories are patently baseless, devoid of any rational legal argument, and unintelligible to even the most astute observer. See Doc. No. 39; United States v. MacAlpine, No. 1:18-CR-00092-MR, 2018 WL 6620889, at *4 (W.D. N.C. Dec. 18, 2018). Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion as frivolous and, again, warn the Defendant that any future filings, or argument at trial, of this nature may result in severe sanctions. See United States v. Johnston, Case No. 2:92-CV-89, 2006 WL 889454, at *1 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 5, 2006) (citations omitted) (“Pro se litigants do not have an absolute and unconditional right of access to the courts in order to prosecute frivolous, malicious, abusive, or vexatious motions.”).
And secondly, the Court will deny the Motion to continue because neither the Speedy Trial Act nor the ends of justice warrant a continuance. As discussed in the United States' response in opposition, the Speedy Trial Act does not require that the 30-day trial preparation period be restarted upon the filing of a superseding indictment, especially one that does not add new charges predicated on new conduct, see United States v.Rojas-Contreras, 474 U.S. 231, 236 (1985), and a continuance would prejudice the United States. The United States is anticipating approximately 25 witnesses. In anticipation of a January 3, 2023, trial the United States has been conducting pretrial meetings with and coordinating travel logistics for these witnesses. Many of these witnesses are from outside Charlotte, and several are from out-of-state. Meanwhile the Defendant has not meaningfully participated in the pretrial process and has continually filed frivolous motions. As such, the Court finds that the Defendant's motion to continue is made primarily for purposes of delay and will deny the Motion.
SO ORDERED.