Either‐Or Timeliness Rule for Superseding Indictments Under 18 U.S.C. § 3282

Introduction

In United States v. Santiago Alirio Gomez Rivera, No. 23-10690 (11th Cir. May 12, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit clarified a recurring question in criminal procedure: when is a superseding indictment timely under the five-year statute of limitations found in 18 U.S.C. § 3282? The case arose from a transnational cocaine importation conspiracy involving two appellants—Santiago Alirio Gomez Rivera (“Gomez Rivera”) and Rafael Segundo Castro Diaz (“Castro Diaz”)—who were charged over multiple indictments for conspiracy to distribute and import cocaine into the United States between January 2008 and September 2013. The defendants moved to dismiss the second superseding indictment as time-barred, arguing it both exceeded the limitations period and impermissibly broadened the charges from earlier indictments. The district court denied their motions, and the defendants preserved their right to appeal that ruling while pleading guilty at a stipulated bench trial. On appeal, the principal question was whether a superseding indictment must satisfy both independent timeliness and relation-back principles or only one of those two routes.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It held that under 18 U.S.C. § 3282 a superseding indictment is timely if it satisfies either (1) independent timeliness—alleging crimes within the five-year window measured from the return date—or (2) relation back to a timely original indictment that remains pending and is not substantially broadened. The court expressly rejected any rule requiring both independent timeliness and a relation-back showing. Because the second superseding indictment alleged a conspiracy lasting until September 2013 and was returned in July 2018—within five years—it was independently timely. The court also found that the stipulated bench-trial evidence was sufficient to prove that both appellants participated in the conspiracy into September 2013. Finally, it directed the district court to correct a clerical error in Castro Diaz’s written judgment but otherwise affirmed convictions and sentences.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court surveyed and distinguished several key precedents:

United States v. Italiano (11th Cir. 1990): Established the two ways a superseding indictment can be timely—independent timeliness or relation back—and held relation back applies only when the superseding indictment is filed after the statute of limitations expires.
United States v. Ratcliff (11th Cir. 2001): Applied relation-back analysis where a superseding indictment was filed after the limitations period; did not impose a dual requirement on timely superseders.
United States v. Edwards (11th Cir. 1985): Found added tax charges in a superseding indictment properly related back to timely drug charges and noted these additions did not “improperly broaden” the original indictment.
Out-of-circuit decisions such as United States v. Hance (8th Cir. 2007) and United States v. O’Bryant (1st Cir. 1993): Confirmed that relation-back analysis is triggered only when a superseder is returned outside the statutory window.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in two steps:

Statutory Text and Structure: Section 3282 provides a five-year limitations period for non-capital offenses. A superseding indictment can satisfy that period either by independently alleging conduct within five years of its return or by relating back to an earlier timely indictment. The statute itself does not require both.
Policy and Notice Rationales: Relation-back analysis is designed to preserve charges that would otherwise be time-barred by leveraging the notice function of an earlier indictment. Once a superseding indictment is returned within the limitations period, it itself provides timely notice. Imposing an additional relation-back requirement on timely superseders would serve no notice purpose and conflict with Eleventh Circuit precedents that have allowed wholly new timely charges in superseding indictments.

Impact

This decision resolves a circuit split and potential confusion in Eleventh Circuit applications of Italiano, Ratcliff, and Edwards. By confirming the “either/or” framework, it:

Clarifies that independent timeliness suffices for all superseding indictments filed within five years, eliminating needless relation-back inquiries.
Reduces litigation over whether a timely superseding indictment “broadens or substantially amends” an earlier indictment.
Provides prosecutorial certainty: the government need only ensure a superseding indictment’s date range falls within the limitations window or, if outside, it must show relation back to a pending original indictment.
Fortifies defendants’ rights by reaffirming that the statute of limitations remains a meaningful barrier to stale charges and that relation-back is reserved for untimely superseders.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Superseding Indictment: An updated indictment that replaces an earlier one, often to add defendants or amend dates, counts, or factual allegations.
Independent Timeliness: The new indictment alleges a crime that began or continued within five years of its return date, satisfying the limitations period on its own.
Relation Back: A legal doctrine permitting an otherwise untimely superseding indictment to rely on the filing date of an earlier timely indictment—provided the new charges do not meaningfully broaden or alter the original allegations.
Statute of Limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3282): A rule barring prosecution of non-capital federal crimes unless charges are filed within five years of the offense date.
Withdrawal Presumption: Conspiracy law presumes a defendant’s participation continues until he shows affirmative withdrawal or the conspiracy’s last overt act has occurred.

Conclusion

United States v. Gomez Rivera establishes a clear “either‐or” test for superseding indictments under the federal five-year statute of limitations: a superseding indictment is timely if it is either independently timely or relates back to a timely, pending original indictment without broadening it. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision harmonizes its own caselaw, prevents superfluous relation-back disputes for timely superseders, and preserves robust limitations-period protections against stale charges. Going forward, prosecutors and defense counsel in the Eleventh Circuit need only confirm that new indictments either allege conduct within five years of their return or, if not, properly invoke the relation-back doctrine.