Opinion
Criminal No.: 04-558 (JLL).
April 28, 2008
ORDER
Currently before the Court is the October 5, 2007, motion by Defendant Michael Guibilo ("Defendant" or "Guibilo"), renewed on April 25, 2008, for relief under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161-74. No oral argument was heard. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78. For the reasons given in the accompanying Opinion,
IT IS on this 28th day of April, 2008,
ORDERED that Defendant's Motions to for relief under the Speedy Trial Act (Docket #89 and 96) are hereby DENIED without prejudice.
OPINION
Currently before the Court is the October 5, 2007, motion by Defendant Michael Guibilo ("Defendant" or "Guibilo"), renewed on April 25, 2008, for relief under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161-74, for failure to indict him within 30 days of arrest and because the pendency of proceedings exceeded the time limits under the Act. For the reasons given in this Opinion, this Court will deny Guibilo's motion.BACKGROUND
Guibilo was arrested on March 8, 2004, while attempting to rob a bank in Millburn, New Jersey. The next day, March 9, 2004, a Complaint was filed against him, and Guibilo's initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Hedges occurred that same day. (Docket #1.) A series of orders to continue were subsequently filed, covering every day between March 24, 2004, and July 25, 2004. (Docket #4-7.) The initial indictment was filed against Guibilo on August 2, 2004. (Docket #8.) Guibilo was then arraigned on August 10, 2004, and a superceding indictment followed on November 15, 2004.
Following numerous continuance orders and pretrial motions, a jury trial was held in this case from January 19, 2006, through February 10, 2006, resulting in a guilty verdict. Guibilo was sentenced by this Court on October 2, 2006, to 1080 months imprisonment.
DISCUSSION
The Government construes Guibilo's motion as one to dismiss the Complaint and Indictment, and this Court, upon review of Guibilo's papers, concludes that this is the proper way to construe the motion. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(1)-(2); Def. Br. at 1; Gov't Br. at 1.
The Government contends that Guibilo's filing of a notice of appeal on October 20, 2006, divested this Court of jurisdiction over Guibilo's motion. (Gov't Br. at 3.) The Government relies upon Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 495 U.S. 56, 58 (1982), for the proposition that the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction. Griggs interpreted the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and found that a notice of appeal that is prematurely filed under Rule 4(a)(4) is a nullity. 495 U.S. at 61. This Circuit has interpreted Griggs as standing for the proposition that "[i]t is well established that `[t]he filing of a notice of appeal . . . confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.'"Sheet Metal Workers' Intern. Ass'n Local 19 v. Herre Bros., Inc., 198 F.3d 391, 394 (3d Cir. 1999). In describing the application of this rule, the Third Circuit has noted that "[t]he rule is a judge-made, rather than a statutory, creation that is founded on prudential considerations. It is designed to prevent the confusion and inefficiency that would result if both the district court and the court of appeals were adjudicating the same issues simultaneously. As a prudential doctrine, the rule should not be applied when to do so would defeat its purpose of achieving judicial economy." Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle, 847 F.2d 90, 97 (3d Cir. 1988).
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), analyzed in Griggs, is limited in application to civil cases. Compare Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) (governing appeals in civil cases) with Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) (governing appeals in criminal cases). This Circuit has, however, applied the rule of Griggs in the criminal context. United States v. Scarfo, 263 F.3d 80, 88 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Sheet Metal Workers' Intern. Ass'n Local 19, 198 F.3d at 393). See also United States v. Rogers, 101 F.3d 247, 251-52 (2nd Cir. 1996) (applying Griggs in the criminal context).
This Court sentenced Guibilo on October 2, 2006. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c), Guibilo had ten (10) days to file his notice of appeal via delivery to the authorities of the institution in which he was housed. Guibilo submitted his Notice of Appeal on October 4, 2006. (Notice of Appeal, Docket #76.) Because Guibilo timely filed his notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c), and the Court of Appeals has not rendered a final judgment in his case or remanded it, this Court no longer has jurisdiction to dismiss his indictment or alter his sentence in a manner other than those permitted in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Griggs, 495 U.S. at 58; Sheet Metal Workers' Intern. Ass'n Local 19, 198 F.3d at 393; Fed.R.Crim.P. 4(b). Because this Court does not, at this time, possess jurisdiction over this matter, and because the interests of judicial economy would be served by declining jurisdiction given the current posture of the case, Guibilo's motion for relief under the Speedy Trial Act is denied without prejudice.