United States v. Beau Lee Lewis, United States of America v. Beau Lee Lewis

PER CURIAM Opinion. Dissent by Judge SILER.

OPINION

Beau Lee Lewis was convicted of a number of offenses related to his role in a wildlife smuggling operation. He was sentenced to total of 36 months in prison and three years of supervised release. He appeals his convictions and sentences on several grounds, including that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss his indictments under the Speedy Trial Act (“the Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (c)(1). We reverse and remand on the basis of the Act and do not reach the other grounds. 1 Background

Lewis’s conviction arises from an extensive undercover government investigation of Malaysian wildlife smuggler Anson Wong. In an effort to gain Wong’s trust, the government purchased several shipments of legal reptiles from him through a California-based front, PacRim Import/Export Company. To dispose of the animals it acquired, the government placed an advertisement in Reptiles magazine seeking buyers. Lewis, an 18-year-old herpetologist who ran a small reptile business out of his Buckeye, Arizona home, responded to one of these advertisements.

Lewis developed a cordial business relationship with Special Agent George Morrison,…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent, not because I condone the numerous delays in commencing the trial, as related by the majority opinion, but because I think that precedent in this court precludes the dismissal of the indictments.

As the majority recognizes, there is ample authority in this circuit after the decision in United States v. Clymer, 25 F.3d 824 (9th Cir.1994), explaining that the decision in Clymer is limited to cases in which a motion is postponed until after trial. See, e.g., United States v. George, 85 F.3d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir.1996)(“[T]he exception in ... Clymer ... applies only when a motion is decided after trial.”) Accord United States v. Gorman, 314 F.3d 1105, 1115 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Springer, 51 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir.1995). In each of these cases following Clymer, motions in limine, similar to the motion in this case, were filed by either the prosecution or the defense.

The majority quotes language from Gor-man, 314 F.3d at 1115 , that we should also consider whether there was an effort by the defendant “to obtain hearings on the pretrial motions.” Lewis made no explicit requests. Although he did request a speedy trial, I would not find that…

349 F.3d 1116 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beau Lee LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beau Lee Lewis, Defendant-Appellant. No. 01-10666. No. 01-10668. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 17, 2003 — San Francisco, California. Filed November 13, 2003. Dean D. Paik, San Francisco, California, for the defendant-appellant. Kelly A. Johnson, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Kevin V. Ryan, United States Attorney, San Francisco, California; Dennis Michael Nerney, Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, California; Todd D. Aagaard, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CR-98-00165-MJJ, CR-99-00204-MJJ. Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Eugene E. REINHARDT, SILER, * and HAWKINS, Michael Daly Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM Opinion. Dissent by Judge SILER. OPINION PER CURIAM. 1 Beau Lee Lewis was convicted of a number of offenses related to his role in a wildlife smuggling operation. He was…