Guthrie

MEMORANDUM **

Blame Guthrie appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to dismiss the indictment and to suppress the statements she gave to National Park Service (“NPS”) Rangers during her detention. Guthrie contends the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment and suppress her statements because the 27-hour delay between her arrest and initial appearance before a magistrate violated: (1) the Fourth Amendment; (2) the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California’s Criminal Justice Act Plan (“CJA”); and (3) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) (“Rule 5”) and the Mallory rule. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I.

Because Guthrie’s pre-arraignment detention lasted less than 48 hours, it is presumptively constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 , 111 S.Ct. 1661 , 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991). Guthrie presents three arguments to rebut the presumption of constitutionality.

First, Guthrie contends she was not presented to the magistrate at the first scheduled arraignment calendar following her arrest. The presentment delay occurred for…