Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David J. EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-03
Citations: 430 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: No. 10-10227
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David J. EDWARDS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David J. EDWARDS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-10227.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 15, 2011.
Filed May 3, 2011.
Mark E. Cullers, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William Anthony Romaine, Law Office of William A. Romaine, Visalia, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: NOONAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David J. Edwards ("Edwards") appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress grand jury testimony and dismiss the indictment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Assuming, without deciding, that the district court erred in denying Edwards's motion to suppress Ledbetter's grand jury testimony, we conclude that the error was harmless. "[A]s a general matter, a district court may not dismiss an indictment for errors in grand jury proceedings unless such errors prejudiced the defendants." Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988). Since the testimony and documentary evidence that Special Agent Brian Applegate presented to the grand jury were clearly sufficient to support the indictment, the admission of Ledbetter's testimony did not " 'substantially [influence] the grand jury's decision to indict' " and the district court properly declined to dismiss the indictment. See id. at 256, 108 S.Ct. 2369(quoting United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 78, 106 S.Ct. 938, 89 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (O'Connor, J., concurring)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.