United States v. Back

── United States v. Back ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-6099 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 18, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-6099 (D.C. No. 5:23-CR-00348-G-1) CHAD BACK, a/k/a Overflow, (W.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before McHUGH, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ A federal jury convicted Chad Back of several crimes related to a drug-distribution conspiracy. He asks us to reverse his convictions, arguing that the government violated his due-process rights by delaying his prosecution, and that the district court erred by admitting a coconspirator’s statements. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. We have honored the parties’ request for a decision without oral argument. * See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This decision is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-6099 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 2 I Mr. Back’s prosecution arose from allegations that he organized drug deals from an Oklahoma prison. Federal agents used a confidential informant to conduct a series of controlled buys—drug purchases monitored and directed by law enforcement. The informant initiated the buys by contacting Mr. Back in prison on his unauthorized cellphone. Mr. Back then arranged for a third person to deliver drugs to the informant. II The controlled buys occurred in 2019, and Mr. Back’s indictment alleged crimes as late as July 2020. But a grand jury did not indict him until August 2023. Mr. Back moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the government’s delay in securing it violated due process. Statutes of limitations provide the main protection against “overly stale criminal charges.” United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 789 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). Yet the Due Process Clause still “has a limited role to play in protecting against oppressive delay.” Id. Preindictment “delay solely to gain tactical advantage over the accused . . . deviates from elementary standards of fair play and decency required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” United States v. Murphy, 100 F.4th 1184, 1208 (10th Cir. 2024) (brackets, ellipsis, and internal quotation marks omitted). Motions to dismiss for preindictment delay trigger a burden-shifting analysis. Id. at 1210. The first step requires the defendant to “make a prima facie showing that 2  Appellate Case: 25-6099 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 3 the delay in charging him has actually prejudiced his ability to defend, and that this delay was intentionally or purposely designed and pursued by the Government t