United States Sixth Circuit

District court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment for conspiracy to commit computer fraud is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not properly preserve his factual specificity of the indictment argument; 2) defendant failed to establish that the face of the indictment failed to charge the elements of a federal offense; 3) no violation of the statute of limitations occurred as the indictment was returned within five years of the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy; 4) defendant failed to demonstrate that he was actually prejudiced by a pre-indictment delay; and 5) the district court committed no error in denying defendant's motion to dismiss based upon entrapment as a matter of law.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/12/2009
• Published 11/12/2009

Judges

• Before:  BATCHELDER, Chief Judge;  DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge;  VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Richard G. Lillie, Lillie & Holderman, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant.  Daniel R. Ranke, Assistant United States Attorney, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Richard G. Lillie, Gretchen A. Holderman, Lillie & Holderman, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant.  Daniel R. Ranke, Assistant United States Attorney, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.