Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee made no additional changes to Rule 12.2, following publication. AMENDMENT BY PUBLIC LAW 1986—Subd. (c). Pub. L. 99–646 inserted ‘‘4241 or’’ be- fore ‘‘4242’’. 1984—Subd. (a). Pub. L. 98–473, § 404(a), substituted ‘‘offense’’ for ‘‘crime’’. Subd. (b). Pub. L. 98–473, § 404(b), which directed the amendment of subd. (b) by deleting ‘‘other condition bearing upon the issue of whether he had the mental state required for the offense charged’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘any other mental condition bearing upon the issue of guilt’’, was repealed by section 11(b) of Pub. L. 98–596. Subd. (c). Pub. L. 98–596, § 11(a)(1), substituted ‘‘to an examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4242’’ for ‘‘to a men- tal examination by a psychiatrist or other expert des- ignated for this purpose in the order of the court’’.
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee made no changes in the Rule and Commit- tee Note as published. It considered and rejected the suggestion that the rule should refer specifically to non-certified photocopies, believing it preferable to allow the definition of reliability to be resolved at the local level. The Committee Note provides examples of the factors that would bear on reliability. AMENDMENT BY PUBLIC LAW 1984—Subd. (c). Pub. L. 98–473 substituted ‘‘shall de- tain or conditionally release the defendant’’ for ‘‘shall admit the defendant to bail’’.
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee made minor clarifying changes in the pub- lished rule at the suggestion of the Style Committee. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2011 AMENDMENT
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee made no substantive changes to Rule 34 fol- lowing publication. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2009 AMENDMENT Former Rules 29, 33, and 34 adopted 7-day periods for their respective motions. This period has been ex- panded to 14 days. Experience has proved that in many cases it is not possible to prepare a satisfactory motion in 7 days, even under the former rule that excluded in- termediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. This led to frequent requests for continuances, and the filing of bare bones motions that required later supple- mentation. The 14-day period—including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays as provided by Rule 45(a)—sets a more realistic time for the filing of these motions. Rule 35. Correcting or Reducing a Sentence
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee made no substantive changes to Rule 45 fol- lowing publication. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2007 AMENDMENT
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee [made] no changes to the Rule or Commit- tee note after publication. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2009 AMENDMENT The times set in the former rule at 10 days have been revised to 14 days. See the Committee Note to Rule 45(a). REFERENCES IN TEXT The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, referred to in subd. (g)(1), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee made no substantive changes to Rule 29 fol- lowing publication. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2009 AMENDMENT Former Rules 29, 33, and 34 adopted 7-day periods for their respective motions. This period has been ex- panded to 14 days. Experience has proved that in many cases it is not possible to prepare a satisfactory motion in 7 days, even under the former rule that excluded in- termediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. This led to frequent requests for continuances, and the filing of bare bones motions that required later supple- mentation. The 14-day period—including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays as provided by Rule 45(a)—sets a more realistic time for the filing of these motions. AMENDMENT BY PUBLIC LAW 1986—Subd. (d). Pub. L. 99–646 added subd. (d). EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1986 AMENDMENT Section 54(b) of Pub. L. 99–646 provided that: ‘‘The amendments made by this section [amending this rule] shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enact- ment of this Act [Nov. 10, 1986].’’
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee agreed with the NADCL [sic] proposal that the words ‘‘has authority’’ should be inserted in Rule 41(c)(3), and (4) to parallel similar language in Rule 41(c)(1) and (2). The Committee also considered, but re- jected, a proposal from XXXXX [sic] to completely re- draft Rule 41(d), regarding the finding of probable cause. The Committee also made minor clarifying changes in the Committee Note. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2008 AMENDMENT Subdivision (b)(5). Rule 41(b)(5) authorizes a mag- istrate judge to issue a search warrant for property lo- cated within certain delineated parts of United States jurisdiction that are outside of any State or any federal judicial district. The locations covered by the rule in- clude United States territories, possessions, and com- monwealths not within a federal judicial district as well as certain premises associated with United States diplomatic and consular missions. These are locations in which the United States has a legally cognizable in- terest or in which it exerts lawful authority and con- trol. The rule is intended to authorize a magistrate judge to issue a search warrant in any of the locations for which 18 U.S.C. § 7(9) provides jurisdiction. The dif- xxxxxxx between the language in this rule and the stat- ute reflect the style conventions used in these rules, rather than any intention to alter the scope of the legal authority conferred. Under the rule, a warrant may be issued by a magistrate judge in any district in which activities related to the crime under investiga- tion may have occurred, or in the District of Columbia, which serves as the default district for venue under 18 U.S.C. § 3238. Rule 41(b)(5) provides the authority to issue warrants for the seizure of property in the designated locations when law enforcement officials are required or find it desirable to obtain such warrants. The Committee takes no position on the question whether the Con- stitution requires a warrant for searches covered by the rule, or whether any international agreements, trea- ties, or laws of a foreign nation might be applicable. The rule does not address warrants for persons, which could be viewed as inconsistent with extradition re- quirements.
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee made no changes to Rule 32.1 following pub- lication. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2006 AMENDMENT Subdivision (a)(5)(B)(i). Rule 32.1(a)(5)(B)(i) has been amended to permit the magistrate judge to accept a judgment, warrant, and warrant application by reliable electronic means. Currently, the rule requires the gov- ernment to produce certified copies of those docu- ments. This amendment parallels similar changes to Rules 5 and 41. The amendment reflects a number of significant im- provements in technology. First, receiving documents by facsimile has become very commonplace and many courts are now equipped to receive filings by electronic means, and indeed, some courts encourage or require that certain documents be filed by electronic means. Second, the technology has advanced to the state where such filings could be sent from, and received at, locations outside the courthouse. Third, electronic media can now provide improved quality of trans- mission and security measures. In short, in a particular case, using electronic media to transmit a document might be just as reliable and efficient as using a fac- simile. The term ‘‘electronic’’ is used to provide some flexi- bility to the rule and make allowance for further tech- nological advances in transmitting data. The Commit- tee envisions that the term ‘‘electronic’’ would include use of facsimile transmissions. The rule requires that if electronic means are to be used to transmit a warrant to the magistrate judge, the means used be ‘‘reliable.’’ While the rule does not fur- ther define that term, the Committee envisions that a court or magistrate judge would make that determina- tion as a local matter. In deciding whether a particular electronic means, or media, would be reliable, the court might consider first, the expected quality and clarity of the transmission. For example, is it possible to read the contents of the warrant in its entirety, as though it were the original or a clean photocopy? Second, the court may wish to consider whether security measures are available to insure that the transmission is not compromised. In this regard, most courts are now equipped to require that certain documents contain a digital signature, or some other similar system for re- stricting access. Third, the court may consider whether there are reliable means of preserving the document for later use.
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee adopted almost all of the style suggestions by the Style Subcommittee, and several of the sugges- tions by the Federal Magistrate Judges’ Association. In particular the Committee adopted a variation of the language suggested by the Association concerning mat- ters disposing of a ‘‘charge or defense.’’ The committee also addressed the issue in Rule 59(a) of clarifying the starting point for the 10 days in which to file objections by changing the word ‘‘made’’ in line 9 to read ‘‘stat- ed.’’ In Rule 59(b)(1) the Committee rearranged the order of the sample motions that would be considered ‘‘dispositive.’’ Finally, the Committee included a para- graph at the end of the Committee Note, addressing the decision not to further specify in the rule, or the Note, what matters might be dispositive or nondispositive. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2009 AMENDMENT The times set in the former rule at 10 days have been revised to 14 days. See the Committee Note to Rule 45(a).
