UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 23-1836 _______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant

v.

REGINALD L. HOPKINS _______________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 1-21-cr-00177-001 District Judge: The Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson __________________________

Argued February 7, 2024 Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Filed: July 9, 2024) Carlo D. Marchioli [ARGUED] Office of United States Attorney Middle District of Pennsylvania Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse 1501 N. 6th Street, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 202 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Counsel for Appellant John A. Abom [ARGUED] Abom & Kutulakis 2 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Appellee

__________________________

OPINION OF THE COURT __________________________ SMITH, Circuit Judge.

The Government appeals the District Court’s dismissal with prejudice of one of two counts set forth in an indictment. In finding, inter alia, that the Government colluded with state law enforcement to evade the strictures of the Speedy Trial Act (“STA” or “the Act”), the District Court invoked a so-called “ruse exception” to the STA as the basis for granting the dismissal. The exception is a judicially created carve-out to the 2 Act and has not been previously adopted by this Court. Nor have any of our sister courts of appeals applied a version of the ruse exception to dismiss a federal charge for violation of a time limit established by the STA. As the District Court conceived of the purported exception, a defendant must prove two elements: first, that state charges were filed for the sole or primary purpose of preparing a federal criminal prosecution; and second, that there was collusion between state and federal authorities. Because we conclude that—at least as it relates to a prosecution first initiated in a state court—the STA contains no implied ruse exception, we will reverse the order of the District Court and reinstate the dismissed count of the indictment.

I.

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After Reginald Hopkins was arraigned in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on, inter alia, a state firearms offense, and while awaiting his state preliminary hearing,1 a federal grand jury for the Middle District of Pennsylvania returned a two-count indictment against Hopkins. The indictment, which was filed June 23, 2021, charged Hopkins with distributing cocaine base, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and for being a felon-in-possession of firearms and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Hopkins appeared before a federal magistrate judge for his arraignment 1 Hopkins’s state preliminary hearing was continued four times. 3 and entered a not guilty plea. Thereafter, the state charges were withdrawn.

Defense counsel filed numerous unopposed motions to extend the deadline for filing pretrial motions under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 and to continue jury selection and trial. Six motions to continue were filed by two different defense counsel, each of whom also sought and received leave to withdraw from the case. Before entry of an appearance by a third defense counsel, Hopkins filed a pro se motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of the STA. Because Hopkins was still represented by counsel, the District Court ordered the motion to dismiss stricken, without prejudice to refiling with counsel’s assistance.

Then