IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. 3:15-cr-00019-HZ

Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER

v.

JOSE MANUEL NUÑEZ-NARANJO,

Defendant.

Gregory R. Nyhus

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office

1000 S.W. Third Ave., Suite 600

Portland, OR 97204

Attorney for Plaintiff

Stephen R. Sady

Office of the Federal Public Defender

101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700

Portland, OR 97204

Attorney for Defendant

1- OPINION & ORDER

Case 3:15-cr-00019-HZ Document 24 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 9
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Defendant Jose Manuel Nuñez-Naranjo brings this Motion to Dismiss for Violation of the 

Speedy Trial Act. Defendant contends that the federal indictment charging him with being an 

alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), was not filed within 30 days 

of his arrest as required under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). The Court heard oral 

argument on April 2, 2015 and April 13, 2015. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion 

is denied. 

BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2014, Defendant was arrested by Clackamas County deputies following a 

traffic stop in which they discovered a firearm. Defendant was taken into custody and charged 

with “Unlawful Possession of a Weapon” and “Failure to Carry and Present a License.” On the 

same day, an immigration detainer was filed. Def.’s Ex. 101. 

On July 31, 2014, Defendant was given a plea offer from the Clackamas County District 

Attorney and was released from state custody. Def.’s Mot. Ex. C. Defendant was ordered to 

appear on September 4, 2014; he failed to do so but he did appear in Multnomah County on 

October 8, 2014 on an unrelated charge of possession of methamphetamine. Def.’s Mot. Ex. A, 

D. Defendant pleaded guilty to “Possession of Controlled Substances—Methamphetamine” and 

received a sentence of 20 days incarceration. Def.’s Mot. Ex. E. Because of the existing 

Clackamas County warrant, on November 3, 2014, Defendant was transported to Clackamas 

County. Def. Mot. Ex. F. 

At oral argument, Immigration Enforcement Agent Prince Planthara, the primary agent 

working on Defendant’s case, testified that on November 18, 2014, he was part of an email 

2- OPINION & ORDER

Case 3:15-cr-00019-HZ Document 24 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 9
conversation with Clackamas County Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Michael Salvas and jail 

staff. Mr. Planthara testified that he had communicated to DDA Salvas that there was federal 

interest in prosecuting Defendant for the federal charge of alien in possession of a firearm.

On November 19, 2014, DDA Salvas filed a motion to dismiss the state charges, “on the 

grounds and for the reason that the U.S. Attorney’s office will be seeking to prosecute defendant 

on these charges.” Def.’s Mot. Ex. G. The order was signed the same day. Id.

Also on the same day, November 19, Defendant was arrested by Mr. Planthara on behalf 

of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Mr. Planthara testified that his sole purpose in 

making the arrest was to effect an administrative detention for violation of immigration laws. 

According to Mr. Planthara, because Defendant had a prior conviction for possession of 

methamphetamine, he was deemed a mandatory arrest according to ICE priorities.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-213, filled in by Mr. Planthara on 

November 19, 2014, states the current administrative charges against Defendant as “Alien 

Present Without Admission or Parole” and “Controlled Substance Conviction.” Def.’s Ex. 119 at 

2. The DHS Form I-265, also dated November 19, 2014, includes the handwritten notation: 

“Subject has a PCS conviction, and has been accepted for federal prosecution 922(g).” Def.’s Ex. 

123 at 1.

Defendant’s “A-file”1 documents demonstrate that once Defendant was taken into ICE

custody, he requested that an immigration judge review his custody determination. Def.’s Ex. 

1 The A–file documents the history of immigrants' and others' interactions with components of the 

Department of Homeland Security and predecessor agencies. Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 372 (9th Cir. 

2010). The United States Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) uses the information in an A–File to 

enforce U.S. immigration laws. See 72 Fed. Reg. 9017–01, 2007 WL 594827 (2007); see also 72 Fed.

Reg. 1755–02, 2007 WL 86868 (2007) (“The A–File is the record that contains copies of information 

regarding all transactions involving an individual as he/she passes through the U.S. immigration and 

inspection process. Previously, legacy Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) handled all of these 

transactions. Since the formation of DHS, however, these responsibilities have been divided among 

3- OPINION & ORDER

 

Case 3:15-cr-00019-HZ Document 24 Filed 04/15/15 Page 3 of 9
121. In addition, Defendant waived his right to a 10-day period prior to appearing before an 

immigration judge, asking instead for an expedited hearing on a Form 1-862, titled “Notice to 

Appear.” Def.’s Ex. 122 at 2. At oral argument, Mr. Planthara testified that the Notice to Appear 

is the charging document for immigration proceedings in immigration court and that an 

immigration case begins with the filing of such document. However, Mr. Planthara testified that 

in this case, neither he nor any other immigration enforcement agent filed the Notice to Appear 

with the immigration court. As a consequence, the immigration court has no open case for 

Defendant, Defendant’s A-file reflects no activity in the immigration case since November 19, 

2014, no asylum officer has conducted a credible fear review, and Defendant has yet to appear 

before an immigration judge. Mr. Planthara conceded that the failure to file the Notice to Appear 

was contrary to normal protocol.

On January 14, 2015, Defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury and an arrest 

warrant was issued. On January 28, 2015, Defendant first appeared in federal court and was 

arraigned on a single-count indictment alleging “Alien in Possession of a Firearm,” in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). 

STANDARDS

Under the Speedy Trial Act, an “indictment charging an individual with the commission 

of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was 

arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). If a 

violation occurs, the Act mandates dismissal: 

USCIS, ICE, and CBP. While USCIS is the custodian of the A–File, all three components create and use 

A–Files.”). The A-file “contains all the individual's official record material such as naturalization 

certificates; various forms (and attachments, e.g., photographs), applications and petitions for benefits 

under the immigration and nationality laws, reports of investigations; statements; reports; correspondence; 

and memoranda on each individual for whom INS has created a record under the Immigration and 

Nationality Act.” 66 Fed. Reg. 46812–02, 2001 WL 1016875 (2001).

4- OPINION & ORDER

 

Case 3:15-cr-00019-HZ Document 24 Filed 04/15/15 Page 4 of 9
If, in the case of any individual against whom a complaint is filed charging such 

individual with an offense, no indictment or information is filed within the time limit 

required by section 3161(b) as extended by section 3161(h) of this chapter, such charge 

against that individual contained in such complaint shall be dismissed or otherwise 

dropped. 

18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that the civil immigration arrest on November 19, 2014, marks the 

beginning of federal speedy trial analysis because the arrest was “in connection with” the 

subsequent federal criminal prosecution. According to Defendant, there were 57 days between 

his arrest and indictment. Defendant argues that the case should be dismissed with prejudice. 

Defendant’s argument fails.

Under the Speedy Trial Act, the 30-day requirement applies to an indictment issued in 

connection with the offense for which the defendant was arrested. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b) (emphasis 

added). “Offense” is further defined as “any Federal criminal offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3172(2);

United States v. Cepeda–Luna, 989 F.2d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. 

Benitez, 34 F.3d 1489, 1493 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that only a federal arrest on federal charges 

triggers the running of the 30–day Speedy Trial Act clock). 

Generally, the Speedy Trial Act does not apply to civil detentions, including 

administrative detention by ICE. Cepeda-Luna, 989 F.2d at 355. However, the Ninth Circuit has 

adopted the “ruse exception” to this general rule. Id. at 357. Under this exception, “the Speedy 

Trial Act can be applied to civil detentions which are mere ruses to detain a defendant for later 

criminal prosecution.” Id. Defendant urges the Court to apply the exception to this case.

However, the question of whether the “ruse exception” applies only arises if the civil 

detention was “in connection with” the charges contained in the later indictment. 18 U.S.C. 

3161(b); see also Cepeda-Luna, 989 F. 2d at 357 (“We have stated that section 3162(a)(1) must 

5- OPINION & ORDER

Case 3:15-cr-00019-HZ Document 24 Filed 04/15/15 Page 5 of 9
be read in connection with section 3162(b) to mean that a 30 day period commences to run as to 

any charge on which that arrest was based.”) (emphasis in original, citation omitted). “The time 

limit for indicting an accused does not begin to run if the accused is arrested for an unrelated 

offense.” Cepeda-Luna, 989 F. 2d at 357 (quoting United States v. Reme, 738 F.2d 1156, 1162 

(11th Cir. 1984)). 

Here, the charges in Defendant’s civil arrest were “Alien Present Without Admission or 

Parole” and “Controlled Substance Conviction;” the later criminal charge of “Alien in Possession 

of a Firearm” was brought in the indictment. Nevertheless, Defendant argues that ICE’s failure to 

file the Notice to Appear in immigration court and the lack of activity in Defendant’s 

immigration proceedings are evidence of the fact that the true purpose of the civil arrest was to 

hold Defendant until the federal grand jury was convened and the U.S. Attorney’s Office could 

bring federal criminal charges. Defendant argues that the extensive communication between ICE 

agents and the federal prosecutor serves as further evidence that Defendant’s civil arrest was “in 

connection with” the later criminal indictment.

Defendant’s argument is not supported by the law. Where a defendant’s civil detention is 

pursuant to a charge independent from a defendant’s criminal charges, the Speedy Trial Act is 

not implicated. United States v. Ortiz-Lopez, 24 F.3d 53, 55 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, the civil 

charges and the criminal charge are clearly independent charges. While the failure to follow 

protocol in Defendant immigration case and the extensive communications between ICE agents 

and the federal prosecutor could be presented in support of a “ruse exception” argument, this 

Court does not reach that issue because Defendant’s civil arrest was not “in connection with” the 

federal criminal charge. 

6- OPINION & ORDER

Case 3:15-cr-00019-HZ Document 24 Filed 04/15/15 Page 6 of 9
The cases cited by Defendant support this conclusion. In Cepeda-Luna, the Ninth Circuit 

declined to apply the Speedy Trial Act because defendant’s civil detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1251, which mandates deportation of aliens convicted of aggravated felonies and drug offenses, 

was independent of defendant’s criminal indictment for illegal reentry. Cepeda-Luna, 989 F. 2d 

at 357. The Ninth Circuit “has repeatedly declined to apply the Speedy Trial Act in situations 

where the defendant’s detention is not pursuant to federal criminal charges, even though federal 

criminal authorities may be aware of and even involved with that detention.” Cepeda-Luna, 989 

F. 2d at 356; see also United States v. Orbino, 981 F.2d 1035, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 1992) (fact that 

federal prosecutors “kept a sharp eye” on civil immigration proceedings does not trigger Speedy 

Trial clock); United States v. Redmond, 803 F.2d 438, 440 (9th Cir. 1986) (Speedy Trial Act not 

implicated when defendant transported from state to federal custody in anticipation of federal 

charges but returned to state custody the same day); United States v. Manuel, 706 F.2d 908, 914-

915 (9th Cir. 1983) (four month delay between tribal arrest and federal indictment did not violate 

Speedy Trial Act); United States v. Johnson, 953 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir.) (although F.B.I. 

actively participated in criminal investigation, Speedy Trial Act commenced only upon federal 

indictment and not defendant's arrest and incarceration by state authorities). 

In contrast, the cases Defendant points to where courts found Speedy Trial Act violations 

all involve administrative and criminal charges stemming from the same underlying conduct. For 

example, in United States v. Okuda, 675 F. Supp. 1552 (D. Haw. 1987), the defendant was 

arrested in connection with both criminal and immigration investigations regarding a false visa. 

The court noted that the charges were not inherently different just because one process was 

administrative and the other was judicial. Id. at 1555. The necessary elements and evidence for 

both charges were the same and the government did not need more time to discover new facts. 

7- OPINION & ORDER

Case 3:15-cr-00019-HZ Document 24 Filed 04/15/15 Page 7 of 9
Id. Therefore, the court held that, because the administrative and criminal charges were 

sufficiently related, the Speedy Trial Act was triggered. Id. The Okuda court distinguished the 

case from United States v. Reme, 738 F.2d 1156 (11th Cir. 1984), where the court found an 

immigration arrest for illegal entry was independent of a later criminal arrest for importing 

illegal aliens.

Similarly, in United States v. Vasquez-Escobar, 30 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1367-69 (M.D. Fla 

1998), where the defendant was civilly detained for illegal reentry and then indicted by the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office for illegal entry, the charges were sufficiently related to trigger the Speedy 

Trial Act. In United States v. Peña, 73 F. Supp. 2d 56, 57 (D. Mass. 1999), the Speedy Trial Act 

was triggered when immigration officials who found that the defendant was subject to being 

deported based on a prior deportation order held the defendant “solely to facilitate the 

preparation of the criminal case” on the charge of illegal reentry.

In United States v. Restrepo, the court explained that “while a civil detention by the INS 

alone does not necessarily trigger the Speedy Trial Act, where that period of detention is used 

primarily or exclusively to develop criminal charges involving the conduct on which the civil 

arrest was based, the time limit established by the Speedy Trial Act begins running on the date of 

the civil arrest.” 59 F. Supp. 2d 133, 136-139 (D. Mass. 1999) (emphasis added). The Restrepo

court expressly found that case to be analogous to Okuda and Vasquez–Escobar, and unlike 

Cepeda–Luna, “because the administrative and criminal charges against Restrepo are identical.” 

Id. at 138. 

Finally, in United States v. Quinones, the Speedy Trial Act was triggered because the 

defendant was in administrative detention for fraudulent misuse of a visa and illegal reentry and 

was subsequently criminally prosecuted for the same charges. No. 4:13-CR-391, 2013 WL 

8- OPINION & ORDER

Case 3:15-cr-00019-HZ Document 24 Filed 04/15/15 Page 8 of 9
4482909 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2013). In sum, Defendant fails to present any cases where the 

Speedy Trial Act was triggered when the civil proceedings were independent of the federal 

criminal prosecution.2 All of the cases Defendant presents in support of his arguments are 

distinguishable.

Ninth Circuit precedent dictates a clear outcome in this case. As in Cepeda-Luna, “[t]his 

court is not unsympathetic to the plight of individuals who are unnecessarily detained for 

extended periods because of federal incompetence or oversight” and this Court’s refusal to apply 

the Speedy Trial Act “does not mean that immigration officials possess unfettered discretion to 

incarcerate deportable aliens.” See Cepeda-Luna, 989 F. 2d at 358. However, because 

Defendant’s civil detention was independent of his subsequent criminal prosecution, the Speedy 

Trial Act is not triggered in this case. Therefore, there is no need to decide whether the “ruse 

exception” would have applied.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion to dismiss [10] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this __________ day of _____________, 201______.

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

2 In addition to all of the cases discussed above, Defendant cites United States v. Osunde, 638 F. Supp. 

171 (N.D. Cal. 1986). However, the Osunde court specifically declined to consider whether or not the 

defendant’s civil arrest was in connection with the subsequent criminal charges he faced. Osunde, 638 F.

Supp. at 174 n. 2.

9- OPINION & ORDER

 

Case 3:15-cr-00019-HZ Document 24 Filed 04/15/15 Page 9 of 9