Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kimberly WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-23
Citations: 360 F. App'x 762
Docket Number: No. 07-10201
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kimberly WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 762–763

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kimberly WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10201.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 23, 2009.
Mark J. McKeon, AUSA, USF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joan Jacobs Levie, Esq., Law Offices of Joan Jacobs Levie, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Kimberly Williams appeals from the district court's order denying her motion to dismiss her citation for misappropriation of property, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.30(A)(3), or in the alternative, to suppress the statements she made to National Park Service Rangers during her detention. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Williams contends that the district court erred by declining to suppress her confession and dismiss her citation because the 28-hour delay between her arrest and arraignment violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a), as construed by McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957). This contention lacks merit because Williams confessed within six hours of arrest, and there is no indication in the record that the confession was made involuntarily. See 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c); see also Corley v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1558, 1571, 173 L.Ed.2d 443 (2009).
Williams also contends that the pre-ar-raignment delay violated her Fourth Amendment rights. We reject this contention because Williams has failed to rebut the presumption that the delay was constitutional. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56-57, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991); see also Kanekoa v. City & County of Honolulu, 879 F.2d 607, 611-12 (9th Cir.1989).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.