FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50298 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cr-02277- v. LAB-1 ARMANDO OROZCO-BARRON, AKA Armando Orozco-Baron, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 8, 2022 Pasadena, California Filed May 22, 2023 Before: Carlos T. Bea, Sandra S. Ikuta, and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Ikuta; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Christen 2 UNITED STATES V. OROZCO-BARRON SUMMARY * Criminal Law Affirming Armando Orozco-Barron’s conviction for attempted illegal reentry after deportation, the panel held that the district court, in denying Orozco-Barron’s motion to dismiss his information for violations of the Speedy Trial Act, did not clearly err in excluding periods of delay resulting from ends of justice continuances granted due to events caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic. The focus of the parties’ dispute was on whether the period from August 14, 2020 (the day after the information was filed) until December 1, 2020 (a total of 110 days) was excluded from computing the time within which the trial had to commence under the Speedy Trial Act. The panel concluded that the district court complied with the applicable statutory requirements. First, the district court’s finding that the ends of justice were best served by granting continuances during the period from August 14, 2020, until December 1, 2020, was timely because the district court put this finding on the record during the July 12, 2021, hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss under 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). The continuances were also specifically limited in time to successive 30-day periods. Next, the district court made the requisite findings under § 3161(h)(7)(A), consistent with United States v. Olsen, 21 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2022) (per curiam), by relying * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V. OROZCO-BARRON 3 on the Southern District of California chief judge orders in effect during the time period at issue. In addition to relying on the chief judge orders, the district court made its own findings on the record. The district court also considered the relevant statutory and non-statutory factors when deciding to grant a continuance. The panel wrote that the district court’s findings—both the district court’s statements at the hearing and the chief judge orders incorporated by reference—are consistent with Olsen’s reasoning that a court could appropriately base its decision to grant continuances on the fact that “a global pandemic that has claimed more than half a million lives in this country, and nearly 60,000 in California alone, falls within such unique circumstances to permit a court to temporarily suspend jury trials in the interest of public health.” In light of this court’s ruling in Olsen, and the continuation of the global pandemic, the panel concluded that neither the district court’s factual findings nor …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals