Case ID: f-appx_501/html/0629-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Lee FRANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50505.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 12, 2012.
    Filed Dec. 18, 2012.
    Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael Dore, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Davina T. Chen, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patricia Ann Young, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Terry Franklin appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for post-indictment dely, the district court’s denial of his suppression motion, and his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). We affirm the district court on all three matters.

Franklin’s motion to dismiss was based on the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. In this case, the length and reasons for delay do not excuse Franklin from showing actual, non-speculative prejudice. See United States v. Beamon, 992 F.2d 1009, 1014 (9th Cir.1993) (“[W]e must consider the amount of delay in relation to particularized prejudice.”). Franklin cannot show that his trial’s delay caused him such prejudice. As a result, the delay between Franklin’s indictment, arrest, and trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial rights. We affirm the district court’s denial of Franklin’s motion to dismiss.

We also affirm the district court’s denial of Franklin’s suppression motion. We find that the circumstances created reasonable suspicion for an “investigatory stop,” or Terry stop, of Franklin. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177, 185, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004). The accompanying frisk was appropriate under the circumstances.

Finally, for the reasons enumerated by the district court, we affirm Franklin’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). United States v. Franklin, CR 07-967 PSG, 2011 WL 3424448 (C.D.Cal. Aug.5, 2011). 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.