United States of America v. Kimberly Williams

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EF/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KIMBERLY WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-10201
D.C. No. CR-05-00306-LJO
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Kimberly Williams appeals from the district court’s order denying her
motion to dismiss her citation for misappropriation of property, in violation of
FILED
DEC 23 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EF/Research 07-10201 2
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 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354
U.S. 449 (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, 129
S. Ct. 1558, 1571 (2009).
Williams also contends that the pre-arraignment 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 (1991); see also Kanekoa v. City & County of
Honolulu, 879 F.2d 607, 611-12 (9th Cir. 1989).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --