Mejia-Garcia

MEMORANDUM *

The government appeals from the district court’s order dismissing the indictment charging defendant with one count of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 , and two counts of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (a). The government contends that the district court erred by determining that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial right was violated. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an indictment based upon the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. See United States v. Lam, 251 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir.2001). The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Beamon, 992 F.2d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.1993).

We conclude that the fourteen month delay was presumptively prejudicial; therefore, we must apply the balancing test set out in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). See United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir.2002). Because the delay was fairly extensive and this was a simple, non-death penalty case, the length of delay factor weighs in favor of the defendant.…