Court Opinion

ID: 9482804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:01:01.908668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:12.915785
License: Public Domain

JAMES M. BURNS, Senior District Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot agree with the premature and broad-brush treatment of the “IADA-pa-role” issue in the majority opinion, which comes dangerously close to overruling United States v. Black, 609 F.2d 1330 (9th Cir.1979).
Disposition of this case at this juncture does not require us to reach and “decide” the issue of the relationship between the IADA and a grant of parole by the sending jurisdiction. In my view, we should remand to the district court for an evidentia-ry hearing on the third continuance of 90 days to determine whether any or all of that time was excludable; the number of excludable days was, after all, the core issue for both Snyder and the State. If the district court on remand were to find after a hearing that the time was excludable and Snyder was held in Nevada’s custody pretrial for only 112 days attributable to the State, this conclusion would foreclose Snyder’s claim that the 120-day maximum period prescribed by the IADA was exceeded. It would be unnecessary for us to consider the correctness of the district court’s conclusion that the grant of parole voided the IADA 120-day requirement. If the district court were to find the 90 days were not excludable and restates its denial of Snyder’s claim on the basis of Iowa’s grant of parole, Mr. Snyder is free to bring his case back to this court (and, I would suggest, to this panel) to have that knotty question decided.
I respectfully dissent.