Criminal – Limitations – Superseding indictment

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was found guilty following a bench trial, his convictions should be affirmed despite his argument that the district court wrongly denied his motion to dismiss Counts Two and Six of the superseding indictment as time-barred.

“Following a bench trial, the district court convicted Jose Padilla-Galarza (‘Padilla’) of several counts related to a scheme to steal firearms from a Puerto Rico police compound. The court sentenced Padilla to twenty-five years in prison. On appeal, Padilla argues that two of his convictions were time-barred and that several unjustified discretionary rulings prejudicially tainted the remaining convictions. We affirm. …

“… On October 15, 2015, shortly before the expiration of the statute of limitations, a grand jury indicted Padilla for masterminding the robbery and committing several related crimes. The original indictment charged five counts: (1) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery; (2) brandishing and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence; (3) stealing firearms; (4) unlicensed dealing in firearms; and (5) being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The indictment also charged three co-defendants, all of whom pleaded guilty before Padilla’s trial. …

“Padilla argues that the district court wrongly denied his motion to dismiss Counts Two and Six of the superseding indictment as time-barred. The government responds that Padilla has waived this argument and that, in any event, he is wrong on the merits. Because the argument fails on the merits, we choose to bypass the government’s waiver claim. …

“Here, Counts Two and Six of the superseding indictment neither broadened nor substantially amended the original indictment. …

“Nothing about the superseding indictment increased the consequences for Padilla on Count Two or caused him to respond to allegations with which he was not already familiar. Accordingly, the district court correctly denied Padilla’s motion to dismiss Counts Two and Six of the superseding indictment on statute-of-limitations grounds.”

United States v. Padilla-Galarza (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-094-26) (19 pages) (Aframe, J.) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Docket No. 22-1950) (May 6, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.