context: Moreover, as we have shown, Lopez ultimately was not prejudiced. Thus exercise of the court's supervisory powers to dismiss the indictment is not warranted, even if we could certify Lopez's request to file a successive habeas petition, and even assuming the district court could invoke such powers which are "not typically considered to be an independent basis for post-conviction review."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 580 F.2d 365, 367
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding district court did not err in denying motion to dismiss the indictment where defendant showed no prejudice
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Ross, 372 F.3d 1097, 1107, 1110 (9th Cir.2004) (“Because no government misconduct prejudiced [defendant], dismissal of the indictment is not warranted.”); see also United States v. Owen, 580 F.2d 365, 367 (9th Cir.1978) (concluding district court did not err in denying motion to dismiss the indictment where defendant showed no prejudice).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 372 F.3d 1097, 1107, 1110
citation_b.parenthetical: "Because no government misconduct prejudiced [defendant], dismissal of the indictment is not warranted."
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Ross, 372 F.3d 1097, 1107, 1110 (9th Cir.2004) (“Because no government misconduct prejudiced [defendant], dismissal of the indictment is not warranted.”); see also United States v. Owen, 580 F.2d 365, 367 (9th Cir.1978) (concluding district court did not err in denying motion to dismiss the indictment where defendant showed no prejudice).