Indictment — United States v. Tracy and Carolyn Wade (Dkt. 287, S.D. Fla. No. 0:23-cr-60173)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW · Doc. 287 · 2025-07-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 23-60173-CR-WILLIAMS/GRAHAM  
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
 
 
 
vs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TRACY D. WADE, 
 
 
 
       Defendant. 
                                    / 
 
UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND SURRENDER DATE [DE 282]  
AND RENEWED MOTION TO EXTEND SURRENDER DATE [DE 285] 
 
The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds in 
opposition to the following motions filed on behalf Defendant Tracy D. Wade (“Defendant”): (1) 
“Motion to Extend Surrender Date by 30 Days,” filed on July 5, 2025 (DE 282); and (2) “Renewed 
Motion for Extend Surrender Date by 30 Days,” filed on July 23, 2025 (DE 285) (collectively, the 
“Motion to Extend Surrender”).        
1. 
The Court has sentenced Defendant to a total term of 90 days imprisonment for his 
convictions in this case (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 of the Superseding Indictment, to run 
concurrently with each other).  Sentence was imposed on March 12, 2025 (DE 239).  Judgment 
was entered on March 20, 2025 (DE 242).  The original surrender date ordered by the Court was 
April 14, 2025 (DE 242 at 2). 
2. 
On April 9, Defendant filed a motion seeking to stay his 90-day term of 
imprisonment until the conclusion of his appeal (DE 247) (the “Motion to Stay”).  On April 12, 
the government filed a written response in opposition thereto (DE 252).  As set forth therein, 
which the government hereby incorporates by reference, the government opposed an extension of 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 287   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2025   Page 1 of 3

2 
 
 
Defendant’s surrender date on the ground that the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3143, requires 
Defendant to serve his sentence of imprisonment pending appeal of his conviction because 
Defendant did not identify any substantial question of law or fact for appeal that is likely to result 
in reversal, a new trial, or a reduced sentence.   
3. 
On April 14, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Stay.  The Court deferred 
its ruling of the Motion to Stay, granted Defendant’s ore tenus motion to extend his surrender date 
to July 28, 2025 (DE 253), and allowed Defendant additional time to file a supplement to the 
Motion to Stay in advance of the new surrender date. 
4. 
   On July 5, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion to request additional time 
to file its supplement, and in so doing, requested an additional 30 days for Defendant to surrender 
(i.e., until August 27, 2025).  The basis for the request was to allow Defendant to obtain the 
transcripts of a hearing held on September 26, 2024 on Defendant’s pre-trial motions to dismiss 
the Superseding Indictment (DEs 130 and 134), which the Court referred to United States 
Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt.    
5. 
The government’s opposition to the relief Defendant seeks—an extension of his 
surrender date—has not changed.  The government does not believe that Defendant is entitled to 
a stay of his sentence pending appeal, or any further extension of the surrender to make arguments 
for such a stay, because Defendant still has not identified, and cannot identify, any substantial 
question of law or fact for appeal that is likely to result in reversal, a new trial, or a reduced 
sentence. 
6. 
The basis for Defendant’s latest request to further extend his surrender date—to 
obtain and review transcripts of the pre-trial hearings on his motions to dismiss—does not change 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 287   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2025   Page 2 of 3

3 
 
 
the analysis.  Those motions were fully briefed (See DEs 128, 130, 145, 150 and DEs 134, 146), 
and Judge Hunt issued a lengthy Report and Recommendation as to each motion (DE 166 and DE 
167).  Notably, Defendant did not file any objection to either Report and Recommendation, and 
the Court adopted the Report and Recommendations (DE 166 and 167) in their entirety.  On its 
face, the record relating to Defendant’s pre-trial motions does not raise a “substantial question” 
for purposes of granting a stay pending appeal under the Bail Reform Act because this record 
establishes that it is not a ‘close’ question or one that very well could be decided the other way.” 
United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898, 901 (11th Cir. 1985). 
7. 
Accordingly, for these reasons and the reasons previously argued by the 
government on this issue, the United States respectfully asks the Court to deny Defendant’s Motion 
to Extend Surrender (DEs 282 and 285). 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
    
HAYDEN P. O’BYRNE 
  
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
By: /s/ David A. Snider  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David A. Snider 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Court ID No. A5502260 
500 E. Broward Blvd 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 
Tel: (954) 660-5696 
Fax: (954) 356-7336 
Email: david.snider@usdoj.gov 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 287   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2025   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.287.0.pdf

Size

144,376 bytes

SHA-256

440f77312462ec9cf1e7b588df4840494daf913a0c1383596a7775d992ec52d6

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.287.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)