Jones

MEMORANDUM *

Danny Darnell Jones was indicted in the District of Nevada on a single count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1) and 924(a)(2). For reasons not completely ex *276 plained by the record, there was some delay by federal officers in retrieving him from the custody of the State of California. Jones later moved to dismiss the federal indictment based on alleged violations of his speedy trial rights. The district court denied that motion, and Jones subsequently pled guilty. He now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment.

The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

Jones first contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based upon an alleged violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (“IAD”), 18 U.S.CApp. 2. We review de novo a district court’s refusal to dismiss an indictment under the IAD. United States v. Hall, 974 F.2d 1201, 1204 (9th Cir.1992). The factual findings underlying the decision are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.…