+CO RRE CT E D N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. R OOSEVELT SOLOM ON,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 17-50403 DC No. + C R

17-0458
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 10, 2019 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM Aand WATFORD, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd R OB R ENO, * ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JAN 28 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2)(C ).

* * * The Honora

ble Edua rdo C . R obre n o, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Pe nnsy lva nia , sitting by

de s igna tion.The gove rnm e n t a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the indic tm e nt
a ga inst De fe nda

nt-Appe l le e R oose ve lt Solom o n. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3731 a

nd 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a

nd “ [w] e re v ie w for a

buse of disc re tion the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to dism iss a n indic tm e nt for pre indic tm e nt de la y , unde r both theFifth Am e n dm e n t Due Proc e ss C la use and R u l e 48(b).” Unite d State

s v . Huntle y , 976 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th C ir. 1992). B e c a use the 18-m onth pre
indic tm e nt de la

y ne ithe r rose to the le ve l of a due proc e ss viola

tion nor fe ll within the p urvie w of R

ule 48(b), we re ve rse . 1. The distric t c ourt c le arly e rre d whe n

it found tha

t Solom on ha d
e sta blishe d suffic ie n t pre

judic e to support dism

issa l of the indic tm e nt unde r the Fifth Am e ndm e nt Due Proc e ss C la use . Ninth C irc uit pre c e d e nt squa re ly holds tha t
ne ithe r the a c c um

ulation of a dditiona l c rim ina l history points nor the

lost opportunity

to re c e ive c onc urre nt fe de ra l and sta te se nte nc e s c an sa

tisfy the
re quire d showing of “ a c tua l, non-spe c ulat ive pre j udic e from the de la

y .” Huntle

y , 976 F.2d a

t 1290; se e also Unite d State s v . Gre gory , 322 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ [N] e i the r the possibility tha t the gove rnm e nt m ight use prior c onvic tions for im pe a c hm e nt purpose s nor the possibility tha t [de fe nda nt] m ay have lost the opportunity

to ha ve his . . . se nte nc e s se rve d c onc urre n t ly are the ty pe s of pre judic e that viola te the Fifth Am e n d

m e nt’ s gua

rante e a g a inst e xc e ssive pre i ndic tm e nt
2de la

y .” (c ita tions omi tte d)); Unite d State s v . Martine

z , 77 F.3d 332, 337 (9th C ir. 1996) (re ve rsing distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the indic tm e nt be c a use pre judic e from
an inc re a s e d c rim i na l history c a te gory wa s only spe c ulative give n tha

t the judge
c ould m ake downwa

rd de pa rture at se nte nc ing for ove rstate d c rim ina l history
c a te gory ); Unite d State

s v . She rloc k, 962 F.2d 1349, 1354 (9th C ir. 1989) (holding that the de fe n da

nt’ s a lle gat ion “ that the de l ay pre ve nte d him

from se rving his
se nte nc e c onc urre ntly

with a n e arlie r ra

pe se nte nc e , whic h would ha ve re duc e d his tota l pe riod of c onfine m e nt,” wa s “ too spe c ulat ive to e sta blish a c tua l pre

judic e ” ). C ontra ry to Solom on’ s c o nte ntion tha t his inc re a se d c rim ina l history
c a te gory ne ve rthe le ss c onstitute s a c tua l, non-spe c ulative pre j udic e due to re c e nt le gisla tion, Martine

z and our othe r pre c e de nts c ontinue to c o ntrol. ThePR OTEC T Ac t a nd re lat e d Se nte nc ing Guide line s a m e ndm e n t s did not fore c lose the use of downwa rd de pa rture s to m itiga

te any pote ntia l pre

j udic e ste m

m ing from

an
ove rstate d c rim i na l history c a te gory . Se e Prose c utoria l R e m e die s a n d Othe r Tools to e n d the Exploita

t ion of C hildre n Toda

y Ac t , Pub L. 108-21, 117 Sta t. 650 (2003); 18 U.S.C . § 3553(b); U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.3, 5K2.0 (2016). M ore ove r, the
now a dvisory

nat ure of the Se nte nc ing Guide line s m e ans tha t distric t judge s toda

y have e v e n m ore disc re tion to c orre c t for a ny unfa i r pre

j udic e during se nte nc ing tha n the y did a t t he tim e Martine

z wa s de c ide d in 1996, when the Guide line s we re
3m andatory . As a re s ult, Solom on’ s a lle g e d se nte nc ing pre

judic e re m a ins spe c ulative . The distric t c ourt the re fore a buse d its disc re tion whe n it dism isse d the indic tm e nt unde r the Fifth Am e ndm e nt. 2. While the distric t c ourt only ana l y z e d the pre -indic tm e nt de la y unde r the Fifth Am e ndm e nt’ s Due Proc e ss C la use , a ddre s se d a

bove , the distric t c ourt
a lso c ite d Fe d e ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 48(b) a s a sourc e of its a

uthority to dism iss the indic tm e nt. Howe v e r, R ule 48(b) doe s not a

pply he re be c a

u se the R ule de a ls with de la

y in pre s e nting a

c ha rge to a grand jury only

a fte r a de fe nda nt ha s be e n a rre ste d, a nd it re quire s the c ourt to givea dva n c e wa rning be fore dism issa l. Se e Unite d State

s v . C orona-Ve rbe ra , 509 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th C i r. 2007) (“ R ule 48(b) ‘ c le arly

is limite d to post-a

rre st situa tions.’ ” (quoting Unite d State s v . Marion , 404 U.S. 307, 319 (1971))); Unite d State s v . Be nite

z , 34 F.3d 1489, 1495 (9th C ir. 1994) (“ [A] n a

rre st or prose c ution by

sta te a uthoritie s doe s not trigge r R ule 48(b).” (c ita

tions omitte d)); Huntle

y , 976 F.2d a

t 1292 (“ The judge c ould not prope rly dism iss unde r R

ule 48(b) without forewarning.” ). B e c a use the distric t
c ourt issue d no fore warning a nd Solom on wa s indic te d be fore he wa s ta ke n into fe de ra l c u stody , the c ourt a buse d its disc re tion to the e xte nt tha

t it dism isse d the indic tm e nt in re lia

nc e on R u l e 48(b). RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D for fur the r pr oc e e dings.
4