{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-20","fingerprint":"ewai:us:49b4aa","proof":"sha256:a78af56f6385a8661bf2b7129ed1200ea53562303aa0ae4b7ef368ef6d818778","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"For the First Circuit","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"No. 25-1648","paragraphs":["para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8"]},{"title":"APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS","paragraphs":["para_11"]},{"title":"Before","paragraphs":["para_13","para_14"]},{"title":"Donald C. Lockhart, Assistant United States Attorney, with","paragraphs":["para_16","para_17"]},{"title":"Judith H. Mizner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, for","paragraphs":["para_19"]},{"title":"September 11, 2026","paragraphs":["para_21"]},{"title":"MONTECALVO, Circuit Judge. On March 26, 2025, Jose","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Miguel Pena de la Cruz was indicted in the U.S. District Court for","paragraphs":["para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27"]},{"title":"Cruz was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)","paragraphs":["para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34"]},{"title":"Pena de la Cruz's deportation.2 The next day, Pena de la Cruz was","paragraphs":["para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39"]},{"title":"1 The grand jury returned an indictment charging Pena de la","paragraphs":["para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44"]},{"title":"2 Dismissal of an indictment with prejudice bars future","paragraphs":["para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54"]},{"title":"We begin with an overview of the events leading up to","paragraphs":["para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72"]},{"title":"On May 8, 2025, the district court judge, in a standing","paragraphs":["para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79"]},{"title":"Two weeks later, on May 22, 2025, the district court","paragraphs":["para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86"]},{"title":"3 In the government's later written opposition to Pena de la","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Cruz's motion to dismiss his indictment with prejudice, the","paragraphs":["para_89","para_90","para_91"]},{"title":"Sixth Amendment rights, arguing that Pena de la Cruz could not","paragraphs":["para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99"]},{"title":"On May 29, 2025, the district court held another status","paragraphs":["para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108"]},{"title":"In considering that issue, the district court expressed","paragraphs":["para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120"]},{"title":"4 At that status conference, the district court clarified that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ICE need only bring defendants to court for hearings where their","paragraphs":["para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127"]},{"title":"On June 19, 2025, the government, in compliance with the","paragraphs":["para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133"]},{"title":"Four days later, the district court entered its","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"June 23rd Order that we introduced earlier. This six-sentence","paragraphs":["para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140"]},{"title":"Pena de la Cruz's \"serious pending unresolved criminal charges\"","paragraphs":["para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153"]},{"title":"(1st Cir. 2008) (first citing United States v. Kelley, 402 F.3d","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"39, 41 (1st Cir. 2005); then citing United States v. Maxwell, 351","paragraphs":["para_156","para_157"]},{"title":"The question before us on appeal is whether the district","paragraphs":["para_159","para_160"]},{"title":"Criminal Procedure. To answer that question, we will look to the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"June 23rd Order dismissing Pena de la Cruz's indictment and the","paragraphs":["para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167"]},{"title":"5 In addition to providing for dismissal \"[b]y the Government\"","paragraphs":["para_169","para_170"]},{"title":"P. 48(a), (b). As a threshold matter, because no circumstances of","paragraphs":["para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179"]},{"title":"(S.D.N.Y. 2025) (explaining that courts have often \"looked to the","paragraphs":["para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184"]},{"title":"Rule 48(a) provides for dismissal of criminal charges as","paragraphs":["para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194"]},{"title":"Rule 48(a)'s reference to \"with leave of court,\" which we refer to","paragraphs":["para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203"]},{"title":"Dimova v. Holder, 783 F.3d 30, 40 (1st Cir. 2015) (considering","paragraphs":["para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210"]},{"title":"(D.C. Cir. 1973). Similarly, in United States v. Cowan, the Fifth","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Circuit explained that Rule 48(a)'s judicial leave requirement was","paragraphs":["para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217"]},{"title":"Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) advisory committee's note to 1944 adoption","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1 (explaining that the common-law rule had allowed prosecutors to","paragraphs":["para_220","para_221"]},{"title":"Fifth Circuit clarified, Rule 48(a) was not meant \"to confer on","paragraphs":["para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229"]},{"title":"These cases reflect an important baseline principle:","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Rule 48(a) reserves a role for the court in dismissals, but that","paragraphs":["para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235"]},{"title":"U.S. 22, 29 n.15 (1977). Although the Court did not weigh in on","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Rule 48(a)'s judicial leave requirement in great detail in","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Rinaldi, it clarified that \"the principal object\" of this","paragraphs":["para_239","para_240"]},{"title":"Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's","paragraphs":["para_242"]},{"title":"(1st Cir. 2021) (noting that \"Rule 48(a) protects [a] defendant[]","paragraphs":["para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248"]},{"title":"Ammidown and Cowan, the Court noted that Rule 48(a) has \"been held","paragraphs":["para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253"]},{"title":"Building from that premise, post-Rinaldi, circuit courts","paragraphs":["para_255","para_256","para_257"]},{"title":"Adams, 777 F. Supp. 3d at 210 (discussing approaches across","paragraphs":["para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267"]},{"title":"States v. Raineri, 42 F.3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 1994) (discussing the","paragraphs":["para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272"]},{"title":"On appeal, the government argues that the district court","paragraphs":["para_274"]},{"title":"It asserts that the district court, through its modified standing","paragraphs":["para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285"]},{"title":"Pena de la Cruz argues that the court did not abuse its","paragraphs":["para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293"]},{"title":"And under that rubric, Pena de la Cruz argues, the district court","paragraphs":["para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298"]},{"title":"We conclude that the circumstances here did not reach","paragraphs":["para_300","para_301"]},{"title":"The district court thus abused its discretion in dismissing Pena","paragraphs":["para_303","para_304"]},{"title":"Pena de la Cruz's removal on the dismissal of his indictment with","paragraphs":["para_306","para_307"]},{"title":"To begin, we explain the proper standard for determining","paragraphs":["para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312"]},{"title":"14 F.4th at 75 (citation modified). Further, the government's","paragraphs":["para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324"]},{"title":"42 F.4th 905, 909 (8th Cir. 2022) (holding that a dismissal clearly","paragraphs":["para_326","para_327","para_328"]},{"title":"States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624, 630 (5th Cir. 1981) (allowing courts","paragraphs":["para_330","para_331","para_332"]},{"title":"Pena de la Cruz, in contrast, points to a single circuit","paragraphs":["para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338"]},{"title":"(emphasis added). Notably, the underlined language that Pena de","paragraphs":["para_340"]},{"title":"(1) that Rule 48(a)'s primary purpose is \"to protect a defendant","paragraphs":["para_342","para_343","para_344"]},{"title":"6 It bears mentioning that Carrigan was not decided under","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Rule 48(a), but rather, under Rule 11(e), which governs guilty","paragraphs":["para_347"]},{"title":"Crim. P. 11(e). Thus, Carrigan provides no further explanation","paragraphs":["para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353"]},{"title":"Our own case law in United States v. Raineri, while not","paragraphs":["para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359"]},{"title":"Raineri, a defendant who pled guilty to three criminal counts in","paragraphs":["para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368"]},{"title":"7 Indeed, Raineri was erroneously advised that this count held","paragraphs":["para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376"]},{"title":"In our decision, we noted that Raineri pled guilty under","paragraphs":["para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390"]},{"title":"Drawing from Raineri, we hold today that in determining","paragraphs":["para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396"]},{"title":"42 F.3d at 43. Such circumstances include prosecutorial harassment","paragraphs":["para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406"]},{"title":"Under our clarified standard, we return to the specifics","paragraphs":["para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412"]},{"title":"Recall that the district court's June 23rd Order","paragraphs":["para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423"]},{"title":"Additionally, the June 23rd Order acknowledged the","paragraphs":["para_425"]},{"title":"Cruz, apparently as support for dismissal with prejudice. But the","paragraphs":["para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430"]},{"title":"As time passes following Pena de la Cruz's removal from the United","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"States, of course, circumstances may arise that could severely","paragraphs":["para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438"]},{"title":"Finally, we look to the June 23rd Order's explanation","paragraphs":["para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446"]},{"title":"But even looking beyond the immediate text of the June 23rd Order","paragraphs":["para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457"]},{"title":"Cruz's case, by the grand jury in returning an indictment against","paragraphs":["para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467"]},{"title":"8 In addition to the district court's concerns about the time","paragraphs":["para_469","para_470","para_471"]},{"title":"Cruz's] rights to counsel.\" But although the district court was","paragraphs":["para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478"]},{"title":"Finally, the government also asks us to vacate the","paragraphs":["para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497"]},{"title":"Sixth Amendment rights. Indeed, he did not counter the","paragraphs":["para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505"]},{"title":"By operation of the standing order and its modified","paragraphs":["para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517"]},{"title":"For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the district","paragraphs":["para_519"]},{"title":"9 The government raises another argument that we need address","paragraphs":["para_521","para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535","para_536","para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"For the First Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"No. 25-1648","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"UNITED STATES,","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"JOSE MIGUEL PENA DE LA CRUZ,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Defendant, Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Before","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Montecalvo, Lipez, and Kayatta,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Donald C. Lockhart, Assistant United States Attorney, with","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"whom Leah B. Foley, United States Attorney, was on brief, for","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Judith H. Mizner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, for","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"September 11, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"- 2 -","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"MONTECALVO, Circuit Judge. On March 26, 2025, Jose","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Miguel Pena de la Cruz was indicted in the U.S. District Court for","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"the District of Massachusetts for money laundering conspiracy and","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"aiding and abetting money laundering.1 After he was arraigned,","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"and after a magistrate judge ordered his release from criminal","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"custody on conditions pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, Pena de la","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Cruz was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"custody. On June 19, 2025, the government notified the district","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"court that Pena de la Cruz, a citizen of the Dominican Republic,","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"would be imminently deported. The district court, treating that","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"notice as a motion to dismiss Pena de la Cruz's criminal indictment","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"without prejudice, entered an order on June 23, 2025 (the","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"\"June 23rd Order\"), dismissing the indictment with prejudice upon","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Pena de la Cruz's deportation.2 The next day, Pena de la Cruz was","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"deported. The government now appeals the district court's order","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"dismissing the indictment with prejudice. Because we agree that","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"the dismissal with prejudice constituted an abuse of discretion,","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"we vacate that order and remand to the district court with","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"1 The grand jury returned an indictment charging Pena de la","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Cruz with one count of money laundering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"§ 1956(h) and three counts of aiding and abetting money laundering","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2, in the amounts of","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"$130,040, $70,140, and $139,900, respectively.","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"2 Dismissal of an indictment with prejudice bars future","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"prosecution of the alleged counts, whereas dismissal without","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"prejudice generally allows the government to recharge the","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"defendant with those same counts in the future. See generally","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"Dismissal, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024).","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"- 3 -","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"instructions to enter an order dismissing the indictment without","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"prejudice. We further vacate the district court's standing order","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"at issue in this case, in both its original and modified forms.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"We begin with an overview of the events leading up to","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"the district court's June 23rd Order. During a status conference","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"on May 1, 2025, the government first informed the district court","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"that Pena de la Cruz had been taken into ICE custody and was","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"detained in New Hampshire. In response, defense counsel made an","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"oral motion to dismiss Pena de la Cruz's indictment with prejudice,","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"arguing that his detention, and his likely upcoming deportation,","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"would interfere with his Sixth Amendment rights as a criminal","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"defendant to seek assistance of counsel, testify in his own","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"defense, and present his case at trial. The government responded","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"that in a similar case where a defendant had been moved to ICE","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"custody out-of-state but had not yet been deported, that individual","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"had been returned to Massachusetts to complete criminal","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"proceedings; the government suggested that the same could be done","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"with Pena de la Cruz. The district court ordered Pena de la Cruz","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"- 4 -","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"\"not to be deported\" and instructed the government to respond in","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"writing to Pena de la Cruz's motion for dismissal with prejudice.3","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"On May 8, 2025, the district court judge, in a standing","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"order governing all criminal cases before that judge, ordered that","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"defendants were not to be subject to ICE custody until one of three","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"things occurred: 1) the government moved for dismissal of the","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"pending charges with prejudice and the district court allowed the","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"motion, 2) a jury acquitted the defendant of the charges, or","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"3) judgment was entered following a trial or plea.","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Two weeks later, on May 22, 2025, the district court","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"issued a new order in Pena de la Cruz's case in which it modified","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"its recently issued standing order to \"permit . . . ICE detention\"","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"so long as detainees were not deported until their criminal case","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"had concluded. The court also ordered ICE to \"facilitate the","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"appearance\" of detainees \"for all court appearances where the","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"criminal defendant is permitted to be present.\"","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"3 In the government's later written opposition to Pena de la","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Cruz's motion to dismiss his indictment with prejudice, the","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"government argued that because Pena de la Cruz had not yet been","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"deported, his claim was \"not ripe.\" The government also contested","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"defense counsel's claims concerning prejudice to Pena de la Cruz's","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Sixth Amendment rights, arguing that Pena de la Cruz could not","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"demonstrate that being detained in neighboring New Hampshire would","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"\"significantly prejudice him,\" where his detention did not inhibit","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"his ability to \"receive calls from his lawyer\" and \"review","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"evidence.\" Following the government's written opposition, Pena de","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"la Cruz moved to withdraw his earlier oral motion to dismiss with","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"prejudice as \"not yet ripe.\"","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"- 5 -","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"On May 29, 2025, the district court held another status","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"conference at which ICE facilitated Pena de la Cruz's appearance,","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"in compliance with the court's earlier order.4 At the status","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"conference, defense counsel informed the district court that Pena","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"de la Cruz had \"a final order of removal\" in his immigration","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"proceedings and did not intend to challenge that order. The","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"district court noted that the only remaining issue, then, was","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"whether dismissal of the criminal charges against Pena de la Cruz","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"would be entered with or without prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"In considering that issue, the district court expressed","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"concern over the government's efforts to deport Pena de la Cruz","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"after the United States Attorney had exercised its prosecutorial","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"discretion to indict him. The district court noted that law","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"enforcement had expended time and resources to investigate the","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"case, grand jury members had convened and returned an indictment","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"on serious money laundering charges against him, and a magistrate","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"judge had carefully considered the terms of Pena de la Cruz's","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"release on conditions under the Bail Reform Act. The court did","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"not resolve whether dismissal would be with or without prejudice","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"at that time but ordered the government to provide \"two days","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"notice\" of any plans to deport Pena de la Cruz, stating, \"then","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"4 At that status conference, the district court clarified that","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"ICE need only bring defendants to court for hearings where their","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"attendance was \"required,\" rather than \"permitted.\"","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"- 6 -","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"we'll see what motion is filed.\" The district court confirmed","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"that ICE could \"proceed towards deportation\" so long as notice was","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"provided to the court.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"On June 19, 2025, the government, in compliance with the","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"district court's oral order at the May 29 status conference to","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"notify the district court of any plans to deport Pena de la Cruz,","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"filed a \"Notice of Impending Removal of Defendant.\" The notice","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"indicated that Pena de la Cruz's deportation was scheduled for","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"June 24, 2025.","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"Four days later, the district court entered its","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"June 23rd Order that we introduced earlier. This six-sentence","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"order began by noting that the government had \"properly given","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"notice\" to the court of Pena de la Cruz's upcoming deportation, in","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"compliance with the court's earlier oral order. The court treated","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"the government's removal notice \"as a motion to dismiss the pending","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"indictment without prejudice,\" and registered its concern about","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Pena de la Cruz's \"serious pending unresolved criminal charges\"","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"and what the court perceived as tension between the government's","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"\"claim to be fully enforcing the law\" while simultaneously \"quietly","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"deporting a defendant.\" The district court concluded: \"[u]pon","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"[Pena de la Cruz's] deportation,\" which indeed occurred the next","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"day, \"the indictment against him is dismissed with prejudice.\"","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"This timely appeal followed.","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"- 7 -","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"\"When the district court dismisses an indictment or a","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"portion thereof, we review [its] conclusions of law de novo,","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"factual findings for clear error, and the ultimate ruling for abuse","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"of discretion.\" United States v. Lopez-Matias, 522 F.3d 150, 153","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"(1st Cir. 2008) (first citing United States v. Kelley, 402 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"39, 41 (1st Cir. 2005); then citing United States v. Maxwell, 351","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"F.3d 35, 40 (1st Cir. 2003)).","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"The question before us on appeal is whether the district","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"court abused its discretion in dismissing Pena de la Cruz's","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"indictment with prejudice under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"Criminal Procedure. To answer that question, we will look to the","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"June 23rd Order dismissing Pena de la Cruz's indictment and the","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"district court's standing order, as modified, in more detail. But","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"before considering the specifics of this case, we provide some","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"background about Rule 48(a), which governs dismissal of criminal","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"indictments \"[b]y the Government.\"5 Although Rule 48(a) does not","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"directly address when an indictment may be dismissed with","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"5 In addition to providing for dismissal \"[b]y the Government\"","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"in Rule 48(a), Rule 48(b) provides for dismissal \"[b]y the Court\"","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"in certain circumstances of \"unnecessary delay.\" Fed. R. Crim.","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"P. 48(a), (b). As a threshold matter, because no circumstances of","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"\"unnecessary delay\" are raised here, and because the government","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"does not dispute that its notice of Pena de la Cruz's pending","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"removal functioned as a motion to dismiss without prejudice under","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"Rule 48(a), our analysis falls squarely under Rule 48(a).","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"- 8 -","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"prejudice, in establishing the broader requirements for dismissal,","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"it informs our analysis of the narrower prejudice question before","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"us. See United States v. Adams, 777 F. Supp. 3d 185, 214-15","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"(S.D.N.Y. 2025) (explaining that courts have often \"looked to the","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"same principles that motivate [Rule 48(a)'s] 'leave of court'","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"requirement\" when analyzing a court's \"discretion to dismiss with","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"prejudice under Rule 48(a)\"). We begin with Rule 48(a).","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"Rule 48(a) provides for dismissal of criminal charges as","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"follows:","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"The government may, with leave of court,","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"dismiss an indictment, information, or","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"complaint. The government may not dismiss the","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"prosecution during trial without the","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"defendant's consent.","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a). The first three words of Rule 48(a),","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"\"[t]he government may,\" vest the power to file a motion to dismiss","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"an indictment with the government. Id. Simultaneously,","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"Rule 48(a)'s reference to \"with leave of court,\" which we refer to","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"as the judicial leave requirement, reserves some role for the","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"court. See id. The precise extent of the executive and judicial","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"roles reflected in Rule 48(a) and how those respective powers bear","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"on when dismissal may be entered with prejudice lie at the heart","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"of this appeal. Faced with an absence of direct authority on such","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"issues in this circuit, we look for guidance to cases from our","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"sister circuits that have more squarely addressed Rule 48(a). Cf.","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"- 9 -","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"Dimova v. Holder, 783 F.3d 30, 40 (1st Cir. 2015) (considering","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"decisions of sister circuits).","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"The D.C. Circuit, in United States v. Ammidown,","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"explained that the court \"does not have primary responsibility\" in","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"dismissals under Rule 48(a); rather, the court observed, the","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"judiciary's role is a more limited one, focused on \"guarding","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"against abuse of prosecutorial discretion.\" 497 F.2d 615, 620","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"(D.C. Cir. 1973). Similarly, in United States v. Cowan, the Fifth","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"Circuit explained that Rule 48(a)'s judicial leave requirement was","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"\"intended to modify and condition\" the Executive's power \"by","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"erecting a check on the abuse of Executive prerogatives,\" marking","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"a shift from the prior common-law rule under which prosecutors had","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"near \"absolute power\" to dismiss cases at any time before jury","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"empanelment. 524 F.2d 504, 505, 513 (5th Cir. 1975); see also","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) advisory committee's note to 1944 adoption","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"1 (explaining that the common-law rule had allowed prosecutors to","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"\"enter a nolle prosequi in [their] discretion, without any action","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"by the court\"). But in so conditioning the Executive's power, the","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"Fifth Circuit clarified, Rule 48(a) was not meant \"to confer on","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"the Judiciary the power and authority to usurp or interfere with","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"the good faith exercise of the Executive power to take care that","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"the laws are faithfully executed.\" 524 F.2d at 513. Rather, it","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"concluded, the government's discretion to terminate pending","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"- 10 -","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"charges \"should not be judicially disturbed unless clearly","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"contrary to manifest public interest.\" Id.","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"These cases reflect an important baseline principle:","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"Rule 48(a) reserves a role for the court in dismissals, but that","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"role is narrowly circumscribed. The Supreme Court acknowledged as","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"much in Rinaldi v. United States, noting that Rule 48(a)'s judicial","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"leave requirement \"vest[s] some discretion\" with the judiciary,","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"while leaving the exact scope of that discretion undefined. 434","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"U.S. 22, 29 n.15 (1977). Although the Court did not weigh in on","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"Rule 48(a)'s judicial leave requirement in great detail in","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"Rinaldi, it clarified that \"the principal object\" of this","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"requirement is \"to protect a defendant against prosecutorial","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"objection.\" Id.; see also United States v. Suazo, 14 F.4th 70, 75","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"(1st Cir. 2021) (noting that \"Rule 48(a) protects [a] defendant[]","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"from prosecutorial harassment\"). And, central to our discussion,","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"the Court left open the possibility that certain limited","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"circumstances -- those \"clearly contrary to the public","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"interest\" -- might sometimes warrant denial of leave of court","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"under Rule 48(a). See Rinaldi, 434 U.S. at 29 n.15 (citing","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"Ammidown and Cowan, the Court noted that Rule 48(a) has \"been held","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"to permit the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"- 11 -","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"the defendant has consented if the motion is prompted by","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"considerations clearly contrary to the public interest\").","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"Building from that premise, post-Rinaldi, circuit courts","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"have adopted varying approaches for determining which","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"circumstances are \"clearly contrary to the public interest\" such","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"that judicial leave may be withheld under Rule 48(a). See id.;","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"Adams, 777 F. Supp. 3d at 210 (discussing approaches across","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"circuits). The arguments raised in this case, in part, require us","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"to clarify our own approach in the related context of determining","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"what circumstances so clearly contravene the public interest such","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"that dismissal may be with prejudice. Understanding that the same","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"limited discretion afforded to courts under Rule 48(a) to deny","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"dismissals when \"prompted by considerations clearly contrary to","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"the public interest\" also allows courts to determine those narrow","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"circumstances when dismissal may be with prejudice, we now turn to","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"the parties' arguments. Cf. Rinaldi, 434 U.S. at 29 n.15; United","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"States v. Raineri, 42 F.3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 1994) (discussing the","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"court's authority, under the circumstances of the case, to \"order","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"that the dismissal be modified to reflect that it is a dismissal","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"with prejudice\").","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"On appeal, the government argues that the district court","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"erred in dismissing Pena de la Cruz's indictment with prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"It asserts that the district court, through its modified standing","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"- 12 -","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"order, \"create[d] a system\" requiring the government to notify the","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"court of a defendant's pending removal and triggering \"automatic","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"dismissal [of the defendant's indictment] with prejudice\" \"upon","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"such notice and removal.\" Such a system, the government contends,","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"runs contrary to the default rule that dismissals under Rule 48(a)","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"are typically \"without prejudice\" and to case law limiting","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"dismissal with prejudice to instances where the defendant","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"demonstrates prosecutorial harassment or bad faith, which the","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"government claims did not occur here.","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"Pena de la Cruz argues that the court did not abuse its","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"discretion because case-specific circumstances supported dismissal","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"of the indictment with prejudice. Pena de la Cruz maintains that","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"the relevant considerations bearing on dismissal with prejudice","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"are not as limited as the government contends; rather, he asserts,","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"courts may evaluate \"the public interest in the fair administration","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"of justice and the preservation of the integrity of the courts\"","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"when determining whether to dismiss an indictment with prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"And under that rubric, Pena de la Cruz argues, the district court","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"properly weighed the \"societal interests in prosecuting\" the","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"serious charges against him, the grand jury's involvement in","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"charging him, and how deportation would affect his \"rights to","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"counsel and a fair trial.\"","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"We conclude that the circumstances here did not reach","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"the high threshold required to warrant dismissal with prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"- 13 -","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"The district court thus abused its discretion in dismissing Pena","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"de la Cruz's indictment with prejudice. We also hold that the","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"district court's modified standing order improperly conditioned","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"Pena de la Cruz's removal on the dismissal of his indictment with","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"prejudice, and we accordingly vacate the standing order in its","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"original form and as modified.","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"To begin, we explain the proper standard for determining","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"whether dismissal will be entered with or without prejudice. The","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"government correctly asserts that dismissals under Rule 48(a) are","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"\"[c]ustomarily\" without prejudice, Raineri, 42 F.3d at 43, and","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"that prosecutors are afforded a \"presumption of good faith,\" Suazo,","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"14 F.4th at 75 (citation modified). Further, the government's","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"argument that dismissal with prejudice is typically limited to","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"instances where the defendant has demonstrated prosecutorial bad","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"faith finds persuasive support in decisions from the Fourth, Fifth,","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"and Eighth circuits. Those circuits, in determining which","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"circumstances are so \"clearly contrary to the public interest\"","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"such that judicial leave may be withheld under Rule 48(a), \"treat[]","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"prosecutorial bad faith and the public interest as two sides of","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"the same coin.\" Adams, 777 F. Supp. 3d at 210; cf. United States","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"v. Smith, 55 F.3d 157, 159 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that a \"motion","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"[to dismiss] that is not motivated by bad faith is not clearly","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"contrary to manifest public interest\"); United States v. Bernard,","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"42 F.4th 905, 909 (8th Cir. 2022) (holding that a dismissal clearly","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"- 14 -","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"contravenes the public interest only where the prosecutor \"had an","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"illegitimate motive rising to the level of bad faith\"); United","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624, 630 (5th Cir. 1981) (allowing courts","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"to deny motions to dismiss only where prosecutors are \"clearly","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"motivated by considerations other than [their] assessment[s] of","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"the public interest\").","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"Pena de la Cruz, in contrast, points to a single circuit","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"court decision from the Tenth Circuit, United States v. Carrigan,","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"to support his argument that Rule 48(a) allows courts deciding","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"dismissal motions \"to consider the public interest in the fair","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"administration of criminal justice and the need to preserve the","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"integrity of the courts.\" 778 F.2d 1454, 1463 (10th Cir. 1985)","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"(emphasis added). Notably, the underlined language that Pena de","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"la Cruz relies on from Carrigan is cabined by language reinforcing","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"(1) that Rule 48(a)'s primary purpose is \"to protect a defendant","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"from prosecutorial harassment,\" and (2) that courts must usually","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"grant dismissal unless \"'clearly contrary to manifest public","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"interest.'\" Id. (quoting Cowan, 524 F.2d at 513).6 Ultimately,","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"6 It bears mentioning that Carrigan was not decided under","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"Rule 48(a), but rather, under Rule 11(e), which governs guilty","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"pleas and nolo contendere pleas. 778 F.2d at 1463; see Fed. R.","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"Crim. P. 11(e). Thus, Carrigan provides no further explanation","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"nor application of the underlined language that Pena de la Cruz","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"relies on so heavily.","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"- 15 -","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"while Pena de la Cruz urges us to afford great weight to this","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"sentence from a single out-of-circuit case, we are not persuaded.","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"Our own case law in United States v. Raineri, while not","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"definitively answering when dismissal may be entered with","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"prejudice, counsels courts to exercise their limited discretion","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"under Rule 48(a) with restraint and directs us towards a more","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"circumscribed consideration of the public interest that is closely","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"tied to protecting the defendant from patent unfairness. In","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"Raineri, a defendant who pled guilty to three criminal counts in","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"relation to his alleged involvement in an armed robbery later","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"sought to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging, in part, that he had","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"been misinformed of the penalties for the third count.7 42 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"at 38-39. The government, seeking to \"remedy any possible","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"defects,\" moved to dismiss that count. Id. at 39. The district","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"court granted the dismissal and denied the defendant's motion to","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"withdraw his guilty plea. Id. at 39, 43. On appeal, Raineri","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"asserted that the dismissal -- which was assumed to have been","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"7 Indeed, Raineri was erroneously advised that this count held","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"a \"maximum of 10 years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine\" when in","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"fact, due to his criminal history, he faced a \"mandatory minimum","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"of 15 years' imprisonment\" and a maximum fine of $25,000. Raineri,","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"42 F.3d at 40.","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"- 16 -","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"without prejudice -- \"undercut [his] plea agreement,\" and argued","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"for withdrawal of his guilty plea. Id. at 42-43.","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"In our decision, we noted that Raineri pled guilty under","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"the assumption that \"there [would] be no future trial on any of","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"the[] counts\" he was charged with, but because his third count had","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"been dismissed without prejudice, the possibility remained that he","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"could be reindicted on that count in the future. Id. at 43. To","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"remedy this obvious and severe \"threat of unfairness,\" we","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"recognized that this court had authority to \"itself order\"","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"modification of the dismissal \"to reflect that it [was] with","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"prejudice.\" Id. But, acknowledging that \"the choice to forego","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"permanently a prosecution is ordinarily made by the executive","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"branch,\" we instead remanded to the district court so that the","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"government could elect to either \"accept a dismissal with","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"prejudice\" or \"surrender the guilty pleas and give the defendant","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"[a] trial.\" Id.","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"Drawing from Raineri, we hold today that in determining","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"which circumstances are so \"clearly contrary to the public","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"interest,\" cf. Rinaldi, 434 U.S. at 29 n.15, so as to warrant the","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"entry of dismissal with prejudice, courts may consider those","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"limited circumstances where dismissal without prejudice would","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"raise a patent threat of unfairness to the defendant. See Raineri,","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"42 F.3d at 43. Such circumstances include prosecutorial harassment","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"and prosecutorial bad faith. We leave open the possibility that","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"- 17 -","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"other circumstances might also raise such a clear and serious","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"threat of unfairness to the defendant so as to permit a court to","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"enter dismissal with prejudice under Rule 48(a). See id. However,","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"we caution that such circumstances are exceedingly narrow and thus","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"courts must practice careful restraint in exercising their","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"constrained discretion under Rule 48(a). See id.","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"C.","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"Under our clarified standard, we return to the specifics","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"of this case. As we will explain, because the circumstances here","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"are not \"clearly contrary to the public interest\" under the rubric","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"we just laid out, we conclude that the district court abused its","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"discretion under Rule 48(a) in dismissing Pena de la Cruz's","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"indictment with prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"Recall that the district court's June 23rd Order","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"dismissing Pena de la Cruz's indictment with prejudice upon his","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"deportation noted that the government had \"properly given notice\"","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"of Pena de la Cruz's pending deportation in compliance with the","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"court's earlier oral order. Our review of the record confirms","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"that the government respected the court's orders to timely notify","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"the court of Pena de la Cruz's upcoming deportation and to","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"facilitate his appearance at proceedings, and Pena de la Cruz","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"provides no indication that the government defied other court","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"orders or otherwise acted in bad faith.","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"- 18 -","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"Additionally, the June 23rd Order acknowledged the","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"\"serious pending unresolved criminal charges\" against Pena de la","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"Cruz, apparently as support for dismissal with prejudice. But the","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"serious nature of those charges, which totaled over $340,000 in","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"alleged laundered funds, tends to weigh in favor of dismissal","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"without prejudice, such that these charges might be pursued in the","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"future should Pena de la Cruz later return to the United States.","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"As time passes following Pena de la Cruz's removal from the United","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"States, of course, circumstances may arise that could severely","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"disadvantage his defense if he is reindicted in the future -- for","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"example, evidence supporting his defense may go stale -- but","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"importantly, should Pena de la Cruz return to the United States in","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"the future and be reindicted, all such arguments will be available","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"to him at that time. We see no present and obvious threat of","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"unfairness to Pena de la Cruz.","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"Finally, we look to the June 23rd Order's explanation","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"for why the indictment against Pena de la Cruz was dismissed with","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"prejudice. In a single sentence, the district court explained","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"that, in its view, the government's \"claim to be fully enforcing","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"the law\" was incompatible with the government's simultaneous","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"efforts to \"quietly deport\" Pena de la Cruz. This exceedingly","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"brief explanation is insufficient to overcome the default","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"presumption that dismissal under Rule 48(a) is without prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"But even looking beyond the immediate text of the June 23rd Order","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"- 19 -","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"and at concerns raised in the district court's earlier exchanges","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"with the parties, we cannot conclude that the circumstances here","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"were so \"clearly contrary to the public interest\" to warrant","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"dismissal with prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"In status conferences leading up to the June 23rd Order,","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"the district court expressed concern that Pena de la Cruz's","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"deportation following his indictment would undermine the integrity","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"of the criminal justice system by undercutting the time and","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"resources expended by law enforcement in investigating Pena de la","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"Cruz's case, by the grand jury in returning an indictment against","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"him, and by the magistrate judge in issuing orders concerning his","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"release. Concerns for the careful stewarding of these entities","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"and individuals' time and resources are important, but such","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"considerations alone reflect neither prosecutorial harassment nor","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"bad faith, nor do they otherwise raise a patent risk of unfairness","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"to Pena de la Cruz such that dismissal without prejudice was","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"\"clearly contrary to the public interest.\" Where the collective","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"circumstances here did not meet that high standard, the presumption","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"of dismissal without prejudice prevails.8 Thus, we hold that the","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"8 In addition to the district court's concerns about the time","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"and resources expended by law enforcement, the grand jury, and the","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"magistrate judge, Pena de la Cruz contends that the district court","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"\"was also informed of the impact of deportation on [Pena de la","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"Cruz's] rights to counsel.\" But although the district court was","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"\"informed\" of Pena de la Cruz's arguments that his Sixth Amendment","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"rights as a criminal defendant would be impeded by his immigration","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"detention and likely removal, we find no indication that this was","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"- 20 -","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"district court abused its discretion in dismissing Pena de la","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"Cruz's indictment with prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"Finally, the government also asks us to vacate the","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"original and modified versions of the district court's standing","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"order. Recall that the May 8, 2025 standing order prohibited ICE","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"custody \"until\" one of three events occurred in the defendant's","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"criminal case: dismissal with prejudice, acquittal, or judgment","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"following a trial or plea. And the district court's May 22, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"order modified the standing order to allow for ICE detention but","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"prohibited ICE detainees from being removed until their criminal","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"proceedings concluded \"in the manner set forth\" in the standing","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"order. The standing order expressly applies to all criminal cases","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"assigned to the district court judge in this case. And the","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"district court's June 23rd Order plainly incorporated and","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"implemented the modified standing order by treating the","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"government's \"Notice of Impending Removal of Defendant\" as grounds","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"among the considerations motivating the district court's order","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"dismissing the indictment with prejudice. The district court did","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"not mention such concerns in the June 23rd Order itself nor in the","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"status conferences leading up to that order. In any event, Pena","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"de la Cruz failed to substantiate his claim of prejudice to his","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"Sixth Amendment rights. Indeed, he did not counter the","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"government's countervailing arguments in its written opposition","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"that he had the ability to consult counsel and review evidence","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"while in ICE custody, and he later retracted his initial oral","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"motion to dismiss with prejudice for want of ripeness.","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"- 21 -","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. We therefore agree with","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"the government that we should review the standing order.9","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"By operation of the standing order and its modified","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"version, absent acquittal or judgment of conviction, removal of an","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"indicted defendant is conditioned by the court on dismissal of the","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"indictment, invariably, \"with prejudice.\" But for the reasons we","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"have explained, the district court cannot categorically order","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"dismissal of an indictment with prejudice. Instead, it must","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"conclude that the individual case is one in which dismissal without","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"prejudice would raise a patent threat of unfairness to the","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"defendant. The standing order thus exceeds the district court's","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"limited discretion under Rule 48(a), and we accordingly vacate the","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"standing order in its original form and as modified.","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"IV.","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the district","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"court's June 23rd Order dismissing the indictment against Pena de","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"9 The government raises another argument that we need address","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"only briefly: It asserts that the district court's ruling is","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"\"undermine[d]\" by the holdings of seven other circuits, which, it","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"alleges, \"have held that ICE has authority to detain and remove","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"federally-indicted defendants regardless of the pendency of the","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"federal criminal case and irrespective of release determinations","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"made under the [Bail Reform Act].\" The government's statement is","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"only partially correct. Concerning detention, those seven","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"circuits have indeed held that the detention-and-release","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"provisions of the Bail Reform Act and the Immigration and","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"Nationality Act do not conflict. See, e.g., United States v. Lett,","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"944 F.3d 467, 469 (2d Cir. 2019). But that has no bearing here,","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"where the district court modified its standing order to no longer","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"prohibit ICE from detaining noncitizen defendants.","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"- 22 -","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"la Cruz with prejudice and remand to the district court with","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"instructions to enter an order dismissing the indictment without","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"prejudice. We further vacate the district court's May 8, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"standing order and its May 22, 2025 modification to the standing","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"order, with instructions to remove the standing order from the","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"district court's website.","paragraph_id":"para_540"}],"word_count":4917,"cites":["434\nU.S. 22","522 F.3d 150","402 F.3d\n39","351\nF.3d 35","783 F.3d 30","497 F.2d 615","524 F.2d 504","14 F.4th 70","42 F.3d 36","55 F.3d 157","42 F.4th 905","659 F.2d 624","778 F.2d 1454","944 F.3d 467"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"bd6ad66a72dc868ba2585929839b306d17ea97216216aaf7ad7a0c65f6286957","source_url":"https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1648P-01A.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-06T10:42:16.948+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ca1-25-2027-2026-10-16","name":"Morillo v. United States","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-2027-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-2027-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-2027-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca1-24-1447-2026-10-15","name":"Alvarado-Hernandez v. Blanche","decided":"2026-10-15","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-24-1447-2026-10-15","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-24-1447-2026-10-15","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-24-1447-2026-10-15"},{"id":"us:ca1-26-1187-2026-10-15","name":"United States v. Vizcaino Vizcaino","decided":"2026-10-15","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-26-1187-2026-10-15","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-26-1187-2026-10-15","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-26-1187-2026-10-15"},{"id":"us:ca1-25-2238-2026-10-13","name":"Alawieh v. Mullin","decided":"2026-10-13","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-2238-2026-10-13","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-2238-2026-10-13","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-2238-2026-10-13"},{"id":"us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09","name":"Bean Maine Lobster, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09"},{"id":"us:ca1-25-1268-2026-10-09","name":"Warner v. Amgen Inc.","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1268-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1268-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1268-2026-10-09"},{"id":"us:ca1-24-2020-2026-10-08","name":"United States v. Monteiro","decided":"2026-10-08","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-24-2020-2026-10-08","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-24-2020-2026-10-08","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-24-2020-2026-10-08"},{"id":"us:ca1-23-1923-2026-10-02","name":"Pena-Torres v. University of Science, Arts and Tech","decided":"2026-10-02","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-23-1923-2026-10-02","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-23-1923-2026-10-02","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-23-1923-2026-10-02"},{"id":"us:ca1-25-1178-2026-09-30","name":"United States v. Pastrana-Roman","decided":"2026-09-30","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1178-2026-09-30","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1178-2026-09-30","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1178-2026-09-30"},{"id":"us:ca1-25-1598-2026-09-29","name":"President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Harvard Graduate Students Union - UAW, Local 5118","decided":"2026-09-29","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1598-2026-09-29","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1598-2026-09-29","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1598-2026-09-29"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"bd6ad66a72dc868ba2585929839b306d17ea97216216aaf7ad7a0c65f6286957","recomputed_sha256":"bd6ad66a72dc868ba2585929839b306d17ea97216216aaf7ad7a0c65f6286957","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-20T21:16:14.146Z"}},"hash":"sha256:a78af56f6385a8661bf2b7129ed1200ea53562303aa0ae4b7ef368ef6d818778","version":"legal-2026-10-20","expires":"2026-10-21T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-20+legal-2026-10-20+2026-10-20T20:02:29","content_hash":"sha256:a78af56f6385a8661bf2b7129ed1200ea53562303aa0ae4b7ef368ef6d818778","revalidate_after":"2026-10-20T22:16:14.778Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca1-25-1648-2026-09-11","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-c72c10aa7e7ef1cb85368b2f857805b2","response_hash":"sha256:a78af56f6385a8661bf2b7129ed1200ea53562303aa0ae4b7ef368ef6d818778"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T22:02:17.585Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca1-25-1648-2026-09-11&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":25321}}