Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria De Los Angeles OTHON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-04
Citations: 130 F. App'x 166
Docket Number: No. 04-50144
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria De Los Angeles OTHON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 130
Pages: 166–168

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria De Los Angeles OTHON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-50144.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2005.
Decided May 4, 2005.
Robert Stuart, USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff— Appellee.
Todd Burns, FDSD-Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant — Appellant.
Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria de Los Angeles Othon was convicted for transporting an illegal alien within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii), (v)(II), and (a)(l)(B)(iv). She alleges that the district court erred when it denied her pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment or suppress her confession for pre-arraignment delay in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3501. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1921, and we affirm.
We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that there was no unreasonable delay from Othon's arrest to her arraignment. United States v. Ramirez-Lopez, 315 F.3d 1143, 1151 (9th Cir.2003). "In the circumstances of this case, which included providing [Othon with] medical treatment, the delay was neither unreasonable nor contrary to public policy." United States v. Matus-Leva, 311 F.3d 1214, 1217 (9th Cir.2002); see also United States v. George, 987 F.2d 1428, 1431 (9th Cir. 1993) ("A delay caused by medical necessity does not violate Rule 5(a)."). Furthermore, no evidence suggests that the agents "prolonged the process in order to obtain a confession," or delayed the appearance for "any improper purpose." United States v. Padilla-Mendoza, 157 F.2d 730, 732 (9th Cir.1998). Thus, the district court properly denied Othon's motion to dismiss the indictment or to suppress her inculpatory statements under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3501.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.