District court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment for conspiracy to commit computer fraud is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not properly preserve his factual specificity of the indictment argument; 2) defendant failed to establish that the face of the indictment failed to charge the elements of a federal offense; 3) no violation of the statute of limitations occurred as the indictment was returned within five years of the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy; 4) defendant failed to demonstrate that he was actually prejudiced by a pre-indictment delay; and 5) the district court committed no error in denying defendant's motion to dismiss based upon entrapment as a matter of law.
Argued: July 29, 2009
Decided and Filed: November 12, 2009
Opinion by District Judge Vantatenhove
For Appellant: Richard G. Lillie, Lillie & Holderman, Cleveland, Ohio
For Appellee: Daniel R. Ranke, Assistant US Attorney, Cleveland, Ohio