Chief

DISCUSSION

A. Statute of Limitations

We review de novo a district court’s decision not to dismiss an indictment on statute of limitations grounds. Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir. 1999). We also review de novo the district court’s decision to apply a particu- lar statute of limitations. United States v. Shipsey, 363 F.3d 962, 968 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1004 (2005).

Defendant argues that his indictment, which was returned on October 5, 2004—approximately seven years after the 2 On appeal, Defendant does not challenge the voluntariness of the con- fession, nor does he assert that its admission was erroneous. 1784 UNITED STATES v. SURE CHIEF alleged sexual abuse—was untimely because a five-year stat- ute of limitations applies. He comes to this conclusion by a creative, but ultimately misdirected, route.

[1] The general statute of limitations, which applies to most noncapital offenses, requires the government to charge a sus- pect within five years of the commission of a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). But a different statute of limitations applies in sexual abuse cases. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. In 1990, Congress enacted a…