Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark FAAITA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-15
Citations: 711 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 16-10217
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark FAAITA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 711
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark FAAITA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10217
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018 Honolulu, Hawaii
Filed February 15, 2018
Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Cynthia Ann Kagiwada, Kaneohe, HI, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant-appellant Mark Faaita appeals the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although Faaita (concedes his appeal is untimely under Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, this rule is not jurisdictional, see United States v. Navarro, 800 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2015), and the government does not challenge the appeal's timeliness. Accordingly, we may address it.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Faaita's motion to dismiss the 2014 indictment, even though it dismissed the prior 2011 indictment with prejudice.- In dismissing the 2011 indictment, the district court did not make any finding that the government acted in bad faith, and such a finding would not have been supported by evidence in the record. While the district court may dismiss an indictment with prejudice when it expressly determines that the government is operating in bad faith, see United States v. Hayden, 860 F.2d 1483, 1487-88 (9th Cir. 1988), the district court made no such express determination here, and we decline to infer that the district court implicitly found bad faith, given the lack of support for such a determination in the record. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Faaita's argument that the government's 2014 indictment was a continuation of bad faith conduct. Moreover, the dismissal of the 2011 indictment with prejudice would not preclude the government from seeking a new indictment, see United States v. Castiglione, 876 F.2d 73, 76 (9th Cir. 1988), and the 2014 indictment charges different crimes and transactions than were included in the 2011 indictment.
AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
, We deny Faaita's motion to strike portions of the Government's supplemental excerpts of record.