In Re Jack Glenn Martin, 788 F.2d 696 (11th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Jack Glenn Martin, 788 F.2d 696 (11th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Woods (ca7, 2016-07-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Woods
7th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
In their supplemental briefs, the government and Woods both maintain that such defendants are still considered juveniles under the Juvenile Act. 3 Every circuit which has considered this issue has held that the Juvenile Act “permits the district court to continue to exercise its juvenile jurisdiction where a defendant is [charged] while under twenty-one but attains the age of twenty-one during the criminal proceedings.” United States v. Ramirez, 297 F.3d 185, 191-92 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Smith, 851 F.2d 706, 710 (4th Cir. 1988); United States v. Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 697-98 (11t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Blake
4th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
See United States v. Wright, 540 F.3d 833, 838-39 (8th Cir.2008) (holding that JDA did not apply because defendant “was indicted when he was 28 years old, and was thus no longer a ‘juvenile’ ”), cert. denied, Wright v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2377 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1299 (2009); United States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 669-70 (2d Cir.1987) (holding that JDA does not apply to persons who *345 are over the age of 21 when charged); In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 697-98 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (holding that JDA did not apply to defendant who committed alleged acts when he was sevente…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Flores
11th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 697-98 (11th Cir. 1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sparks
4th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 697-98 (11th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jimenez
5th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
See United States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 669-70 (2d Cir. 1987); United States v. Araiza-Valdez, 713 F.2d 430, 432-33 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Delatorre, 157 F.3d 1205 , 1209 n.2 (10th Cir. 1998); In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 697-98 (11th Cir. 1986); United States v. Thomas, 114 F.3d 228, 264 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Edward Jimenez, Also Known as Big Eddie Paul Santivanez
5th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
See United States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 669-70 (2d Cir.1987); United States v. Araiza-Valdez, 713 F.2d 430, 432-33 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Delatorre, 157 F.3d 1205 , 1209 n. 2 (10th Cir.1998); In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 697-98 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Thomas, 114 F.3d 228, 264 (D.C.Cir.1997). 20 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rivera
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · confidence medium
See United States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 668, 670 (2d Cir.1987) (applicability of Act measured as of date proceedings instituted), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1085 , 108 S.Ct. 742 , 98 L.Ed.2d 777 (1988); In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 697 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1009 , 106 S.Ct. 3306 , 92 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Alex Wong, Roger Kwok, Chen I. Chung, Tung Tran, Danny Ngo, Brian Chan, Joseph Wang, Chiang T. Cheng, and Steven Ng
2d Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See Doe, 13 F.3d at 304 ; M.I.M., 932 F.2d at 1019 ; Brian N., 900 F.2d at 221 ; In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 698 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1009 , 106 S.Ct. 3306 , 92 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). 3.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Brian N. (A Juvenile Male), United States of America v. Craig J.B. (A Juvenile Male) (2×)
10th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See United States v. Doe, 631 F.2d 110, 112-13 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 , 101 S.Ct. 202 , 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980); In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 697-98 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1009 , 106 S.Ct. 3306 , 92 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Keith Wright
8th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
See 18 U.S.C. § 5031 (defining “juvenile” as one “who has not attained his eighteenth birthday, or for the purpose of proceedings and disposition under this chapter for an alleged act of juvenile delinquency, a person who has not attained his twenty-first birthday”); see also United States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667 , 669–70 (2d Cir. 1987) (“[C]ourts have consistently held that a defendant who is alleged to have committed a crime before his eighteenth birthday may not invoke the protection of the Juvenile Delinquency Act if criminal proceedings begin after the defendant reaches the age …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Wright
8th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See 18 U.S.C. § 5031 (defining “juvenile” as one “who has not attained his eighteenth birthday, or for the purpose of proceedings and disposition under this chapter for an alleged act of juvenile delinquency, a person who has not attained his twenty-first birthday”); see also United States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 669-70 (2d Cir.1987) (“[Cjourts have consistently held that a defendant who is alleged to have committed a crime before his eighteenth birthday may not invoke the protection of the Juvenile Delinquency Act if criminal proceedings begin after the defendant reaches the age of t…
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Perry Hoo
2d Cir. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 697-98 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Araiza-Valdez, 713 F.2d 430, 432-33 (9th Cir.1983); United States v. Doe, 631 F.2d 110, 112-13 (9th Cir.1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Jack Glenn MARTIN, Petitioner
86-5221.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 16, 1986.
788 F.2d 696
1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24881
Theodore J. Sakowitz, Federal Public Defender, Stewart G. Abrams, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Miami, Fla., for petitioner., On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Roney, Hatchett, Henderson.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
BY THE COURT:

Jack Glenn Martin has brought a Petition for Mandamus and/or Prohibition, as an emergency matter. He seeks to have this court restrain the district court from further proceedings against him on the ground that he is being improperly tried without the protections of the Juvenile Delinquency Act.

Jack Glenn Martin, and two other persons, were indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for the crimes of conspiracy to import marijuana, conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana, and importation and possession with the intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of several sections of Title 21 U.S.C. Martin and the other defendants are also charged with in[*697] timidating a government informant, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Martin has entered pleas of not guilty to all counts of the indictment in which he is named.

In the conspiracy counts, the indictment charges that a conspiracy existed from an unknown date until about June, 1984. The alleged overt acts pertaining to Martin’s participation in the conspiracy are confined to August and September, 1981, at which time Martin was seventeen years old. The count charging Martin with intimidation of a law enforcement informant alleges that the crime occurred on June 9, 1984, when Martin was twenty years old.

As to the intimidation charge, the government filed a criminal complaint against Martin and arrested him pursuant to that complaint. This complaint was dismissed.

Martin makes three contentions: (1) that the overt acts of the conspiracy which relate to him and form the basis of his inclusion in the conspiracy counts occurred when he was seventeen years of age; (2) that his arrest on the intimidation charge, which occurred prior to his twenty-first birthday, constituted the beginning of “proceedings” as defined by the Juvenile Delinquency Act; and (3) that the government could have brought all of the charges contained in its indictment prior to his twenty-first birthday.

Martin presented these contentions to the district court in a motion to dismiss the indictment. The district court denied the motion to dismiss and set trial for June, 1986.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 5031 defines a “juvenile” as:

A person who has not attained his eighteenth (18th) birthday, or for the purpose of proceedings and disposition under this chapter for an alleged act of juvenile delinquency, a person who has not attained his twenty-first (21st) birthday, and
“juvenile delinquency” is the violation of a law of the United States committed by a person prior to his eighteenth (18th) birthday which would have been a crime if committed by an adult.

We agree with Martin that the alleged overt acts occurred when he was within the age limits of the Juvenile Delinquency Act.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 5032 provides, in applicable part:

A juvenile alleged to have committed an act of juvenile delinquency ..., shall not be proceeded against in any court of the United States unless the Attorney General, after investigation, certifies to the appropriate district court of the United States that (1) the Juvenile Court or other appropriate court of a state does not have jurisdiction or refuses to assume jurisdiction over said juvenile with respect to such alleged act of juvenile delinquency, (2) the State does not have available programs and services adequate for the needs of juveniles, or, (3) the offense charged is a crime of violence that is a felony or an offense described in Sections 841, 952(a), 955, or 959 of Title 21, and that there is a substantial federal interest in the case or the offense to warrant the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

We agree with Martin that no certification has been filed in compliance with section 5032. We further agree with Martin that the intimidation charge was filed prior to the time that he was twenty-one years old. Although we agree with Martin on his factual allegations, relief is foreclosed by case law.

The crucial date for determining whether the Juvenile Delinquency Act applies is the date on which the government institutes proceedings. In United States v. Ariaza-Valdez, 713 F.2d 430 (9th Cir.1980), a complaint was filed against a seventeen-year-old; however, the government did not bring its indictment until the person was twenty-four years old. The Ninth Circuit[*698] held that the complaint did not begin the “proceedings; ” the indictment began the proceedings. United States v. Doe, 631 F.2d 110 (9th Cir.1980), establishes the same rule. We agree with the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit.

The date of the offense is not determinative; the filing of the complaint did not commence “proceedings” under Title 18 U.S.C. § 5031; and the fact that the government could have brought the charges earlier is irrelevant.

Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition is DENIED.