United States v. Plezia
In United States v. Plezia, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-20483 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2024), the Fifth Circuit vacated one of the defendant’s convictions for a statute of limitations violation, but it affirmed his other convictions and his sentence.
Holding 1: The district court erred by tolling the statute of limitations for Count 5 against Plezia. Below, the Government had argued that the statute of limitations had been tolled “due to the delays arising from its compliance with the district court’s COVID orders and from delays in processing Justice Department approvals during the pandemic,” as well as a delay in discovering evidence due to COVID-related issues. The district court ultimately allowed the prosecution to continue because “Plezia [had been] apprised of the charges” before the limitations period expired, even though Count 5 was not filed until after the period expired.
Statutes of limitations are intended “to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanctions.” Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 114 (1970). Congress has provided certain narrow grounds for extending or tolling criminal statutes of limitations, but none of those includes reference to tolling based on “a global health crisis.”
Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit decided this issue based on the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3282 and the “Supreme Court’s statement that ‘a defendant’s right to a fair trial would be prejudiced’ by undue delay of the trial beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the charge against him. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971).” Because Congress has not authorized suspension of the applicable statute of limitations based on COVID-19, the district court erred in denying Plezia’s motion to dismiss Count 5 based on a violation of the statute of limitations.
Holding 2: The evidence was sufficient to convict Plezia. The court’s opinion included a lengthy recitation of the facts, which showed that “Plezia was a Houston-based personal injury attorney” who had falsified his tax returns and committed fraud against the United States by disguising the fact that some of his gains were based on “barratry, the impermissible practice of attorneys soliciting clients that have not invited any contact with prospective counsel.”
Plezia raised a number of challenges regarding the evidence supporting his convictions, both as to its sufficiency and whether it should have been admitted at trial, but the Fifth Circuit rejected each and affirmed his convictions on all counts except Count 5.