United States v. Myra Holmes
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Myra Holmes appeals her judgment of conviction for bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152 (5). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.
First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Holmes’s motion to dismiss the bankruptcy fraud charge against her based on preindictment delay. We “apply a two-part test to determine whether preindictment delay denied due process: (1) the defendant must prove actual, non-speculative prejudice from the delay; and (2) the length of the delay, when balanced against the reason for the delay, must offend those fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions.” United States v. Huntley, 976 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Holmes argues that the government’s delay in filing the indictment deprived her of Leonard Paige’s testimony, which would have supported Holmes’s defense that she believed the refinancing of the Vallejo property as well as the transfer of the property from Paige to Holmes were lawful. Neither party called Paige as a witness at trial because he suffered from significant cognitive impairment.