USA v. Holyfield et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TYRONE HAMPTON,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:22-cr-00084-02-JMK
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Mr. Hampton’s Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”)
at Docket 49. 	The Motion does not specify what decision the Court should reconsider.
However, the Court infers that Mr. Hampton wishes the Court to reconsider its oral ruling
continuing trial and finding excludable delay at the hearing held on December 20, 2022.
Mr. Hampton asserts that “the Speedy Trial clock began to run on the date the original
complaint was filed.”1 Mr. Hampton cites to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1) and United States v.
Alvarez-Perez, 629 F.3d. 1053 (9th Cir. 2010). 	The United States opposes the Motion.2
Mr. Hampton filed a robust reply.3
1 Docket 49 at 1.
2 Docket 73 at 5. Per Local Criminal Rule 47.1(g)(3), a response to a motion to reconsider
should not be filed unless invited by the court. Accordingly, the Court will not consider the United
States’ response in its decision.
3 Docket 89. Per Local Criminal Rule 47.1(d) reply memorandum shall not be filed unless
ordered by the court. 	The Court did not invite or grant leave for Mr. Hampton to file a reply.
Case 3:22-cr-00084-VMK-MMS Document 133 Filed 03/27/23 Page 1 of 3

United States v. Hampton
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
Case No. 3:22-cr-00084-02-JMK
Page 2
The Court may grant a motion for reconsideration only absent a showing of
either: (1) a manifest error of law or fact; (2) the discovery of previously unavailable new
material facts; or (3) an intervening change in the law.4
A defendant’s 70-day Speedy Trial Act (STA) clock begins upon: 	(1) the
filing of an information or an indictment, or (2) a defendant’s appearance before a judicial
officer, whichever is the later date.5 	The Indictment was filed October 20, 2022.6
Mr. Hampton appeared before Magistrate Judge Scoble for arraignment on October 24,
2022.7 Mr. Hampton’s STA clock began October 24, 2022, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
§ 3161(c)(1).
To the extent that Mr. Hampton is arguing that the STA clock should run
from a complaint, this argument does not prevail. 	First, there is not a complaint in this
case.8 Secondly, to the extent Mr. Hampton argues that the STA clock should run from a
state court complaint, this argument is not supported by law. 	A defendant’s Sixth
Amendment right to speedy trial attaches upon indictment.9 	The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals’ long-standing precedent establishes that only a federal arrest or accusation
Furthermore, Local Criminal Rule 47.1(g)(4) prohibits a reply on a motion for reconsideration
unless requested by the Court. Accordingly, the Court will not consider the reply in its decision.
Mr. Hampton is advised of these Local Rules for future motions practice.
4 Local Criminal Rule 47.1(g).
5 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
6 Docket 2.
7 Docket 14.
8 See docket generally.
9 United States v. Mills, 810 F.2d 907, 909 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Meyers, 930
F.3d 1113, 1118–19.
Case 3:22-cr-00084-VMK-MMS Document 133 Filed 03/27/23 Page 2 of 3

United States v. Hampton
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
Case No. 3:22-cr-00084-02-JMK
Page 3
triggers the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3161.10 Any restraint on Mr. Hampton’s liberty
caused by the State of Alaska, even if for the same alleged conduct, is irrelevant to the
federal speedy trial analysis, because that arrest was for a violation of state law.11
Lastly, the Court’s prior findings of excludable delay were proper under 18
U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(6), (h)(7)(A), and (h)(7)(B)(i).
Mr. Hampton has not shown a manifest error of law, new material facts, nor
an intervening change to the law to challenge the Court’s prior rulings. 	Therefore, the
Motion for Reconsideration at Docket 49 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
10 United States v. Adams, 694 F.2d 200, 202 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding “only a federal arrest
will trigger the running of the time period set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161[.]”).
11 United States v. Cordova, 537 F.2d 1073, 1075–76 (holding that the separate sovereign
doctrine permits state and federal governments to bring criminal charges on the same prohibited
conduct, but a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial only activates at the time of the
federal accusation).
Case 3:22-cr-00084-VMK-MMS Document 133 Filed 03/27/23 Page 3 of 3