USA v. Okpowruk
Order on Motion to Dismiss
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CASE NO. 4:06-CR-00019-TWH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
AT DOCKET NO. 14
Defendant, Joshua Okpowruk, has filed a Motion to Dismiss at
Docket No. 14. The Government opposes at Docket No. 17. After
careful consideration of both parties’ pleadings, and review of
the written and audio record of this case, this Court now submits
the following Memorandum and Order.
Defendant asserts that the citation issued to him on July
20th, 2005, alleging misconduct on September 1st, 2000, was
dismissed on January 19th, 2006, Docket No. 14-1, p. 2. In
support of this position, defendant provides Exhibit B, which is
a copy of the electronic information sheet found on the Central
Violations Bureau (CVB) website regarding said citation. In
effect, defendant urges this Court to find that Exhibit B is
proof that on January 19th, 2006, the citation was dismissed.
This Court has reviewed the digital audio recording of the CVB
hearing conducted by Magistrate Judge Roberts on January 19th,
2006, from which Exhibit B apparently emanated. The defendant,
his case, and citation were never mentioned or acted upon in any
fashion by Magistrate Judge Roberts at the January 19th,2006
Moreover, there was no evidence defendant made a motion
to dismiss his citation since defendant did not appear at the
The record also reflects that on March 31st, 2006, the
Government filed an Information charging the defendant with the
same alleged misconduct described on the original CVB citation.
This Court signed an Order on April 12th, 2006, dismissing
defendant’s citation without prejudice upon a request from the
Government. [Annex 1]
Therefore, it is clear that the citation
was not dismissed on January 19th, 2006, but was in fact
dismissed after the Information was filed by the Government.
Defendant also alleges that the Information filed March
31st, 2006, was, “...more than five (5) years from the alleged
criminal conduct...” and therefore was outside the statute of
limitations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Docket No. 14-1, p.2.
Neither party as provided an authority directly on point. This
Court is required to interpret 18 U.S.C. § 3282 by its plain
meaning. This Court interprets 18 U.S.C. § 3282 as meaning that
when a defendant receives notice of alleged misconduct through a
citation, that notice is sufficient to satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 3282
even though the vehicle to give that notice is not the final
document used to proceed to trial.
Thus, just as an Information
can give way to an Indictment, a citation can give way to an
This Court finds that the statute of limitations was tolled
by the issuance of the citation to the defendant on July
20th,2005, which was within the five year period established by
18 U.S.C. § 3282. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at Docket No. 14 is DENIED.
DATED at Fairbanks, Alaska, this 23rd day of June, 2006.
/s/TERRANCE W. HALL
TERRANCE W. HALL
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?