[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 13, 2005
No. 04-12777 THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-20347 CR-JIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARC M. HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(December 13, 2005)
Before DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and STROM*, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
______________________
*Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by
designation.
Appellant Marc M. Harris (“Harris”) appeals his convictions and sentences
imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The issues presented for appellate review are (1) whether the district court
correctly determined that the statute of limitations had not expired on any of the
counts in the superseding indictment; (2) whether the district court abused its
discretion in denying Harris’s motion to dismiss the indictment for pre-indictment
delay; (3) whether the district court correctly concluded that Harris was charged
with and convicted of a single crime under the conspiracy to defraud count
returned by the grand jury in the superseding indictment; and (4) whether the
district court committed plain error by treating the Sentencing Guidelines as
mandatory.
The district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Quiala, 19 F.3d 569, 570 (11th Cir. 1994). This court
reviews de novo “the district court’s interpretation and application of the statute of
limitations. . . .” United States v. Gilbert, 136 F.3d 1451, 1453 (11th Cir. 1998).
A district court’s refusal to dismiss an indictment for pre-indictment delay is
subject to review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Foxman, 87 F.3d
1220, 1222 (11th Cir. 1996).
2
A district court’s determination that the conspiracy count was not
duplicitous is reviewed de novo. United States v. Burton, 871 F.2d 1566, 1573
(11th Cir. 1989).
Any error in the district court’s sentencing Harris under the then-mandatory
Guidelines system is subject to plain error review. United States v. Rodriguez, 398
F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, (2005).
Because we conclude from the record that there is no merit to any of the
arguments Harris makes on appeal, we affirm his convictions and sentences.
AFFIRMED.
3