Opinion
CASE NO. 9:19-CR-80093-ROSENBERG/REINHART
11-08-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT WOOLLEY, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Scott Woolley's Motion to Dismiss Counts 4-12 of the Superseding Indictment. DE 27 and 37. The Court previously referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a Report and Recommendation. DE 28. On September 30, 2019, Judge Reinhart issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be denied. DE 38. Judge Reinhart concluded that the Superseding Indictment is legally sufficient because it sets forth the essential elements of the charged offenses, provides Woolley notice of the charges to be defended against, and enables Woolley to rely upon a judgment under the Superseding Indictment for double jeopardy purposes. See United States v. Woodruff, 296 F.3d 1041, 1046 (11th Cir. 2002) (providing the requirements for a legally sufficient indictment); United States v. Critzer, 951 F.2d 306, 308 (11th Cir. 1992) ("Constitutional requirements are fulfilled by an indictment that tracks the wording of the statute, as long as the language sets forth the essential elements of the crime." (quotation marks omitted)).
Woolley filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. DE 44. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Woolley's Objections, the Government's Response to those Objections [DE 49], and the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the analysis and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation and finds Judge Reinhart's recommendation to be well reasoned and correct. The Superseding Indictment is legally sufficient. The Government's ability to prove the elements set forth in the Superseding Indictment is a matter for trial. See Critzer, 951 F.2d at 307-08.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Magistrate Judge Reinhart's Report and Recommendation [DE 38] is ADOPTED as the Order of the Court.
2. Defendant Scott Woolley's Objections [DE 44] are OVERRULED.
3. Defendant Scott Woolley's Motion to Dismiss [DE 27] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 8th day of November, 2019.
/s/_________
ROBIN L. ROSENBERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record