“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied,” Varlan said in a 16-page opinion and order filed Wednesday.

Booher, a disbarred attorney from Roane County, was indicted in federal court on Sept. 17, 2019, for enticement and felony sexual offense against a minor while on a sex offender registry. Approximately two months later, a superseding indictment was filed against him that added charges of sex trafficking of a child, attempted production of child pornography and another count of enticement.

Booher filed a motion to have the additional charges in the superseding indictment dismissed, alleging federal prosecutors were upset because he didn’t take a plea deal.

“Defendant appears to assert that a presumption of vindictiveness arises simply because the government added charges after he rejected a plea offer,” Varlan said. “But this argument is directly contradicted by both Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit case law, all of which indicates that something more than the addition of charges after rejection of a plea offer is necessary to raise a presumption of vindictiveness in the pretrial stage.”

Varlan said Booher’s motion also suffered from timeliness issues.

“The last reset pretrial motions deadline expired on Jan. 31, 2020, and when that deadline elapsed, the court entered a pretrial order stating that no further motions, other than motions in limine, would be allowed without leave of court,” Varlan said.

Booher’s motion to dismiss wasn’t filed until March 5.

“Even applying the good cause standard, defendant has not met his burden to articulate a legitimate explanation for his failure to timely file the instant motion, as he has not even addressed untimeliness of his motion, nor less provided any explanation for the belated filing,” Varlan said.

Booher once had a law practice in Harriman. The Tennessee Supreme Court disbarred him after he pleaded guilty in 2014 to two counts of statutory rape in Loudon County Criminal Court.

“Defendant complains that counts three, four, and five of the first superseding indictment are based on the same factual scenario as his 2014 Loudon County statutory rape convictions,” Varlan said. “Defendant’s arguments read more as a misplaced double jeopardy argument than an argument regarding prosecutorial vindictiveness.”