United States of America v. Phillip C. Mayfield

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued September 30, 2025
Decided October 3, 2025
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-3115
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PHILLIP C. MAYFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 23-cr-30030
Colleen R. Lawless,
Judge.
O R D E R
A jury convicted Phillip Mayfield of two counts of distributing
methamphetamine. In his brief on appeal, Mayfield argued that the district court
violated his rights under the Speedy Trial Act when it granted the government a
continuance to pursue records from an online platform. But at oral argument, Mayfield
abandoned this argument and instead contended that the district court abused its
discretion by overlooking the government’s alleged lack of diligence in obtaining the
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 24-3115 Page 2
records. Because the district court’s decision was well within its discretion to manage
trial, we affirm the judgment.
Background
Early in 2023, Illinois State Police worked with a cooperating source to conduct
and record two controlled buys of methamphetamine from Mayfield. For each buy,
officers equipped the source with a recording device, but the video component did not
work during the first buy. During the second buy, the device recorded the seller
wearing a surgical mask.
The government charged Mayfield with two counts of distributing 50 grams or
more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). On June 21, 2023, Mayfield
first appeared before the district court and pleaded not guilty. The court set trial for
August 1, 2023, but it later granted Mayfield three continuances and rescheduled trial
for February 12, 2024.
About two weeks before trial, the government told the court that it had obtained
a search warrant for Meta Platforms because the day before it had discovered Facebook
photos of Mayfield wearing a surgical mask like the one worn by the seller in the
recording of the second buy. At a status conference on February 6, the government
moved for a continuance, citing its pending receipt of the Meta records. It argued that
the photos helped identify Mayfield as the masked seller during the second buy and
that it needed the Meta records to lay foundation for the photos. Mayfield objected,
arguing that the government did not exercise due diligence in seeking the records
because it had known for months that identity would be a key issue at trial. The court
found that the ends of justice served by continuing trial outweighed Mayfield’s interest
in a speedy trial and rescheduled trial for April 22.
A week later, Meta produced over 18,000 pages of Facebook records, and the
government shared them with Mayfield. The court later granted Mayfield an additional
continuance to review the new discovery and prepare for trial. Trial began on July 17,
and the jury convicted Mayfield on both counts.
Analysis
Although Mayfield argues in his brief that his rights under the Speedy Trial Act
were violated when the district court granted the government’s motion to continue, he
abandoned that claim at oral argument. In any event, he waived his rights under the

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 24-3115 Page 3
Act when he failed to move to dismiss the indictment on speedy-trial grounds in the
district court.
The Speedy Trial Act requires a criminal trial to begin within 70 days of the
defendant’s indictment or first appearance, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
The time limit excludes continuances the court grants after finding on the record that
the ends of justice served by continuing trial outweigh the interest of the public and the
defendant in a speedy trial. Id. § 3161(h)(7)(A). If trial does not start within 70 days, the
court must dismiss the indictment upon the defendant’s motion. Id. § 3162(a)(2).
A defendant’s failure to move for dismissal results in a waiver—not a forfeiture—of his
rights under the Act. Id.; United States v. Blount, 93 F.4th 1063, 1065 (7th Cir. 2024);
United States v. White, 443 F.3d 582, 589 (7th Cir. 2006).
Mayfield did not move to dismiss the indictment, so he waived his rights under
the Act. We thus need not address his speedy-trial argument on appeal. See White, 443
F.3d at 589.
At oral argument, however, Mayfield pressed a different argument. He asserted
that the district court erred by granting the government’s motion for a continuance
because the government did not exercise due diligence in seeking the Facebook records.
We review a decision to grant or deny a continuance for abuse of discretion and a
showing of prejudice. United States v. Dickey, 52 F.4th 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2022).
Here, the district court explained that the records related to identity—an issue
central to the case—and therefore additional time was needed for effective preparation.
See id. (explaining that district court should consider factors like time for effective
preparation and likelihood continuance satisfies movant’s needs). Counsel agrees these
documents were material to the case. And contrary to Mayfield’s argument, the court’s
order expressly referred to the government’s “exercise of due diligence.” Indeed,
Mayfield does not contest that the government obtained the search warrant the day
after discovering the photos.
Nor can Mayfield show that he was prejudiced. The additional time necessary for
the government to procure the records did not hamper Mayfield’s ability to mount a
defense. See United States v. Harmon, 721 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir. 2013) (explaining we do
not measure prejudice by whether the government’s case was made stronger). And the
district court granted Mayfield’s requests for extra time to review the records once they
had been produced.

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 24-3115 Page 4
Because the court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion to
continue, we AFFIRM the judgment.

-- 4 of 4 --