U.S. v. Ribota

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment on charge on contempt of court following defendant’s nine-year absence on prior drug and firearm charges, even though defendant argued that instant indictment was motivated by prosecutorial vindictiveness arising out of fact that defendant had prevailed on motion to suppress that had been filed in prior drug and firearms case. Record showed lack of vindictiveness on part of prosecutor, where prosecutor agreed with suppression motion, and where instant contempt indictment arose from conduct that was different from conduct supporting drug and firearms charges. Defendant also failed to present any evidence of actual vindictiveness, and fact that contempt charge was filed on day drug and firearms charges were dismissed did not require different result.