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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. UR IEL SOLIS-SANC HEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50235

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-03122-DM S-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D ana M . Sa

braw, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 11, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , R AW L INSON, and WA TFORD, C i rc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt Urie l Solis-Sa

nc he z a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to
use its supe rvisory

powe rs to dismiss his indict m e nt for a

viola tion of 8 U.S.C
. § 1326, whic h prohibits the re e ntry of a lie ns who ha

ve be e n re m ove d. R e vie wing 

# FIL ED
JUL 17 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

b le for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).for a

b use of disc re tion, we a ffirm
. 1 Se e Unite d State s v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th C ir. 2011) (" A distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to use its supe rvisory

powe rs to dismiss a

n indic tm e nt is re vie we d only for a b use of disc re tion." ), c e rts. de nie d , 132 S. C t. 1768 a

nd 132 S. C t . 1773 (2012).

" A distric t c ourt m ay

e xe rc ise its supe rvisory powe r to im ple m e nt a re m e d y for the viola

tion of a re c ogniz e d sta

tutory or c onstitutiona

l right; to pre se rve judic ia l inte grity

by e n suring tha

t a c onvic tion re s ts on a

p propria te c onside ra tions
va lidly be fore a

jury ; and to de te r future ille ga l c onduc t." Unite d State s v. C ha pm an, 524 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th C ir. 2008) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). B ut, " be c a

use dism issing a

n indic tm e n t with pre

judic e e nc roa c he s on the prose c utor’ s c h arging a

uthority , this sa

n c tion m ay be pe rm itte d only in c a se s of fla gran t prose c utoria l m isc onduc t." Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd bra c ke ts
om i tte d). M ore ove r, " [a ] c ourt m ay dism i ss a n indic tm e nt unde r its supe rvisory powe rs only

whe n the de fe nda

n t suffe rs substa

n tia l pre judic e ." Id. at 1087 (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d).

1 W e de c line the gove rnm e nt’ s invita tion to re v ie w only for pla in e rror, be c a use De fe nda

nt suffic ie n tly

ra ise d his supe rvisory -powe rs a rgum e nt be fore the distric t c o urt. W e a l so de c line De fe nda nt’ s invita tion to re v ie w de novo, be c a use the c a se s he c ite s in support of tha t sta nda rd are not on point. At a

ny ra te , the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision wa s prope r unde r a ny of the sta nda rds sugge ste d to us. 2Unde r those sta nda rds, the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in de c lining to dism

i ss the indic tm e nt. Eve n a ssum ing tha t viola tions of theDue Proc e s s C la

use and R ule 5 oc c urre d, the gove rnm e nt’ s a c t ions did not rise to the le ve l of " fla grant prose c utoria l m isc onduc t." 2 Any viola tion re sulte d from

a pra c tic e m e ant to ha

ndle the la

rge num be r of de fe nda

nts a rre ste d in thedistric t
e a c h da y , se rious se c urity

and a dm inistra

tive c onc e rns, a

nd the ne e d to sc re e n for he a lth issue s, rathe r tha

n from any im p rope r purpose suc h a s a

de sire to inflic t punishm e nt or to obtain e v i de nc e im prope rly . M ore ove r, De fe nda n t ha s not suffe re d substa

ntia l pre judic e , be c a

use he is in no worse

a le g a l position in re ga

rd to his prose c ution tha

n he would ha

ve be e n in thea

bse nc e of a

ny viola tion. W e re je c t the argum e n t tha

t B e ll v. W olfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), provide s the a ppropria te sta nda rd for de c iding this c a se . Although B e ll give s the sta n da rd for de c iding whe n a

pre tria l de ta ine e ’ s due proc e ss rights ha ve be e n viola

te d, it
sa y s nothing a

bout whe n dism issa l of a

n indic t m e nt is thea

ppropria te re m e dy for
suc h a viola tion. W e a lso re

je c t the argum e nt tha

t the pe rva sive ne s s of de la y s a n d the unc onstitutiona

l c onditions of c onfine m e n t justify a strong re m e dy to de te r

2 W e de c line the gove rnm e nt’ s invita tion to ignore

the argua bly una uthoriz e d re ply

brie f that De fe nda

nt file d in thedistric t c o urt be c a use , e ve n if his a lle gations of deplora ble tre atm e n t we re prope rly be fore the c ourt, the distric t c ourt did not err. 3future m i sc onduc t be c a use the gove rnm e nt, unde r c ourt orde r, a l re a d y ha s
c orre c te d the proble m s of whic h De fe nda n t c o m pla ins. Thus, dism

issing De fe nda nt’ s indic tm e nt is unne c e ssa ry to de te r future c onduc t. AFFIRM E D.

4