United States v. De Rong Shang

MEMORANDUM

De Rong Shang appeals his convictions and sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and aiding and abetting. We affirm.

(1) Shang first argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment because of preindictment delay in violation of the Fifth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V; United States v. Valentine, 783 F.2d 1413, 1416 (9th Cir.1986). We do not agree. In order to sustain this claim, Shang first had to prove “actual, non-speculative prejudice from the delay.” United States v. Huntley, 976 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Wallace, 848 F.2d 1464, 1469-70 (9th Cir.1988). That is a heavy burden, and Shang did not meet it. The indictment was filed within the statute of limitations period, and Shang has not made any non-speculative showing that his defense was “actually impaired meaningfully” by the loss of a witness, or the supposed dimming of witnesses’ memories. Because he did not meet his burden of showing actual prejudice, we need not, and do not, consider the reasons for the delay. See United States v. Martinez, 77 F.3d 332, 335 (9th Cir.1996); see also Corona-Verbera, 509 F.3d at…