United States v. Guyon
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Guyon. Read the opinion of the Court — 27 F.3d 723 →
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
December 30, 1994
[Not for Publication] [Not for Publication]
United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 94-1193
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
RICHARD GUYON,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Boudin, Circuit Judge, _____________
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
Stephen J. Weymouth for appellant. ___________________
Kevin J. Cloherty, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom __________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee. _______________
____________________
____________________
STAHL, Circuit Judge. Defendant-appellant Richard STAHL, Circuit Judge. _____________
Guyon appeals his conviction for failure to appear at trial
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3146(a)(1). We affirm.
I. I. __
BACKGROUND BACKGROUND __________
On June 27, 1991, on the fourth day of his trial on
charges of bank fraud in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Guyon failed to appear. The
district court issued a bench warrant for his arrest, and
Guyon was apprehended approximately two weeks later in Idaho.
Guyon's trial continued without his presence, he was
convicted in absentia on the bank-fraud charges, and on __ ________
December 10, 1991, was sentenced to thirty-months
imprisonment. His sentence included a two-level enhancement
for obstruction of justice attributed primarily to a finding
that Guyon had perjured himself and only incidently to
Guyon's flight during trial.
After his arrest in Idaho, Guyon faced additional
bank-fraud charges in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia. On November 4, 1991, he
was convicted on these charges and on January 24, 1992, he
was sentenced to thirty-seven months imprisonment, to run
concurrently with the sentence imposed in the Massachusetts
bank-fraud case. The Virginia sentence also included a two-
-2- 2
level enhancement for obstruction of justice due to Guyon's
flight during the Massachusetts bank-fraud trial.
On May 19, 1993, counsel was appointed to represent
Guyon in his appeal of the Massachusetts bank-fraud
conviction.1 Two days later, on May 21, 1993, nearly two
years after his flight from the Massachusetts bank-fraud
trial, the grand jury returned an indictment against Guyon
for failure to appear at that trial in violation of 18 U.S.C.
3146(a)(1).
Following the indictment, Guyon filed two separate
motions, each entitled "Motion to Dismiss Indictment." The
first sought dismissal on the grounds of unnecessary delay
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(b) ("Rule 48(b)") and the due
process clause of the Fifth Amendment, while the second
relied on the ground of vindictive and malicious prosecution.
After a hearing, the district court denied both motions,
reasoning that "while the pre-indictment delay was
unquestionably long and the government's justification for it
weak," Guyon had nevertheless suffered no prejudice because
of it. The court also held that a presumption of vindictive
prosecution did not exist where the additional charges
brought by the government were unrelated to the substance of
the underlying (bank-fraud) charge.
____________________
1. This conviction was affirmed in United States v. Guyon, ______________ _____
27 F.3d 723 (1st Cir. 1994).
-3- 3
After a bench trial, Guyon was convicted on the
failure to appear charge and was sentenced to three years
probation with that sentence to commence after completion of
the Virginia bank-fraud sentence, which Guyon was then
serving. The sentence also provided that he was to spend the
first six months of his probationary period at a Community
Treatment Center ("CTC"). This appeal followed.
II. II. ___
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION __________
Guyon now argues that the district court erred in
denying his motions to dismiss on the grounds of (1) pre-
indictment delay pursuant to Rule 48(b)2 and (2) vindictive
prosecution. Guyon also claims that the district court erred
in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines when
determining his sentence for the failure-to-appear
conviction. We address each argument in turn.
A. Rule 48(b) ______________
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Guyon, (1st Cir. 1994).
United States v. Guyon (United States v. Guyon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Marion
404 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Barker v. Wingo
407 U.S. 514 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Williams v. Poulos
11 F.3d 271 (First Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Guyon
27 F.3d 723 (First Circuit, 1994)
United States v. William J. Becker, United States of America v. Albert J. Bruno, United States of America v. James E. Elskoe
585 F.2d 703 (Fourth Circuit, 1978)
United States v. Mark A. Mitchell
723 F.2d 1040 (First Circuit, 1983)
United States v. Raymond L. Guthrie, Jr., A/K/A Junior Guthrie, and Walter Graham Lewis
789 F.2d 356 (Fifth Circuit, 1986)
United States v. Frank L. Marrapese
826 F.2d 145 (First Circuit, 1987)
United States v. Adelard Vachon
869 F.2d 653 (First Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Juan Pimienta-Redondo, United States of America v. Alfredo Pupo
874 F.2d 9 (First Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Joseph Lussier
929 F.2d 25 (First Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Walter Esposito
968 F.2d 300 (Third Circuit, 1992)
United States v. James W. McCoy
977 F.2d 706 (First Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Babatunde Kareem Agoro, A/K/A Kareem B. Agoro
996 F.2d 1288 (First Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Rowbotham
430 F. Supp. 1254 (D. Massachusetts, 1977)