Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Halgat

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 13, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMY JOHN HALGAT, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United/States District Court

         Pending before the Court is Defendant Jeremy John Halgat's (“Halgat”) Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government Conduct and/or Pursuant to the Court's Supervisory Powers, (ECF Nos. 864, 868). This Motion was referred to the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman for a report of findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

         On December 26, 2018, Judge Hoffman entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), (ECF No. 1416), recommending that Halgat's Motion to Dismiss be denied. Halgat filed an Objection, (ECF No. 1457), and Supplement, (ECF No. 1458). The Government filed a Response, (ECF No. 1514).

         I. BACKGROUND

         On June 14, 2017, a federal grand jury seated in the District of Nevada, returned a superseding criminal indictment charging Halgat with Conspiracy to Participate in a Racketeering Enterprise, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(d), (Count One); Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 846, 841(b)(1)(A), (Count Eleven); and Using and Carrying a Firearm During and In Relation to Crime of Violence, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c)(1)(A)(I) (Count Twelve). (Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 13).

         Before the current Superseding Indictment was returned, Halgat had faced charges in two prior indictments. First, in United States v. Halgat, et al., 2:13-cr-00239-JAD-PAL, Halgat was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver a controlled substance, from February 22, 2013 to March 2, 2013, and using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of that crime. These allegations are the same allegations contained in Counts Eleven and Twelve of the current Superseding Indictment. (See Superseding Indictment 41:20-44:3).

         Second, in United States v. Halgat, et al., 2:13-cr-00241-APG-VCF, Halgat was charged with four instances of distribution of cocaine on September 19, 2012, and October 11, 12, and 26, 2012, as well as conspiracy to commit those offenses. These allegations are included in the list of overt acts in support of Count One, the RICO violation, of the current Superseding Indictment. (Id. 28:4-29:6) (overt acts 59, 60, 62, 64, and 65).[1]

         In both previous cases, Halgat moved to dismiss on precisely the same bases as the current motion, that is, outrageous government conduct and the court's supervisory powers. In November 2014, the assigned district judges, Judge Andrew P. Gordon and Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey, jointly conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing to address the motion, and independently issued rulings which denied the motions. See Order, United States v. Halgat, et al., No. 2:13-cr-00241-APG-VCF (D. Nev. Jan. 2, 2015), ECF No. 179 (Judge Gordon's order); Order, United States v. Halgat, et al., No. 2:13-cr-00239-JAD-PAL (D. Nev. Jan. 2, 2015), ECF No. 290 (Judge Dorsey's order); (see also Exs. A, B to R. & R., ECF No. 1416).

         While Halgat was awaiting trial, both previous cases were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the Government after the current Superseding Indictment was returned. Halgat then proceeded to file the Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government Conduct and/or Pursuant to the Court's Supervisory Powers, (ECF No. 864), in the instant case.

         On December 26, 2018, Judge Hoffman entered a Report, recommending that Halgat's Motion to Dismiss be denied. (R. & R. 6:19-20, ECF No. 1416). More specifically, Judge Hoffman found that Halgat failed to provide any legal analysis to support the dismissal of Count One. (Id. 3:7-14). Further, Judge Hoffman found that, contrary to the Government's assertions, issue preclusion does not apply in this matter because Judge Gordon and Judge Dorsey's orders were not final, appealable judgments. (Id. 3:15-4:14). Lastly, Judge Hoffman explained that his review and consideration of the arguments and evidence in the previous cases led him to agree with the findings of Judge Gordon and Judge Dorsey. (Id. 5:21-6:4). He therefore incorporated them as his own recommendation. (Id.). Subsequently, Halgat filed the instant Objection.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Objections to a Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations

         A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. Local R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. Local R. IB 3-2(b).

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.