Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
v.
The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United
States Attorney, respectfully submits the following opposition to the defendants motion
for leave to file his untimely motion to dismiss the indictment. As discussed further
Glenn Pawlak, is not currently in custody. On July 18, 2016, this Court issued a criminal
trial scheduling order, setting trial for September 19, 2016. (Dkt. No. 8.) On August 15,
2016, the defendant moved to continue the trial setting in this case. (Dkt. No. 11.) On
August 16, 2016, this Court granted the defendants motion, and ordered that pretrial
motions be filed by October 24, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 12.) On October 24, 2016, the
defendant filed a motion to suppress but did not file a brief in support of his motion.
(Dkt. No. 19.) Pursuant to an agreed-upon briefing schedule ordered by this Court (see
Dkt. Nos. 22, 23), on November 18, 2016, the defendant filed his brief in support of his
motion to suppress. (Dkt. No. 24.) On December 23, 2016, the United States filed its
opposition to the motion to suppress. (Dkt. No. 27.) The parties are currently seeking a
Governments Opposition to Defendants Motion for Leave to File Untimely Motion to Dismiss - Page 1
Case 3:16-cr-00306-D Document 34 Filed 12/29/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID 727
continuance of the trial setting and related deadlines, tied to resolution of the pending
motion to suppress, to allow the parties sufficient time to prepare for an anticipated trial
The defendants request for leave to file another motion two months late should be
denied. The proposed untimely motion raises one argument as the basis for the
defendants requested relief: that the governments investigation into Playpen, a child-
argument was already briefed in the defendants suppression brief that he filed on
November 18, 2016. In addition to being largely duplicative, the defendants proposed
motion to dismiss does not address a key legal requisite that the defendant must show in
order to raise the defense set forth in his motion. As addressed in the United States
opposition to the defendants motion to suppress, this defendant is barred from raising
this claim because he cannot (and does not try to) show that he was not an active
participant in the conduct for which he is charged. See, e.g., United States v. Carriles,
541 F.3d 344, 361 (5th Cir. 2008) (reversing dismissal of the indictment and finding no
basis for a finding of outrageous conduct because the defendant was an active, willing
participant in the conduct for which he was charged with a crime). The proposed
Further, the defendant does not explain why he did not timely file the motion to
dismiss by the motions deadline, nor does he explain why he did not seek leave to file the
motion to dismiss in November. The substance of the motion, along with the timing of
its filing, suggest that its purpose is to further delay resolution of this case.
Governments Opposition to Defendants Motion for Leave to File Untimely Motion to Dismiss - Page 2
Case 3:16-cr-00306-D Document 34 Filed 12/29/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID 728
Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny the
defendant leave to untimely file his proposed motion to dismiss the indictment.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN R. PARKER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Governments Opposition to Defendants Motion for Leave to File Untimely Motion to Dismiss - Page 3
Case 3:16-cr-00306-D Document 34 Filed 12/29/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID 729
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 29, 2016, I electronically filed the above filing
with the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas,
using the electronic case filing system of the Court. Said filing provided electronic notice
Governments Opposition to Defendants Motion for Leave to File Untimely Motion to Dismiss - Page 4