No. 22-2005 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

D.B.

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western ____________

Submitted: October 20, 2022 Filed: March 6, 2023 ____________ Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ KELLY, Circuit Judge.

D.B., a juvenile and an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree burglary pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court1 sentenced him to 12 months of official detention followed by a three-year

1 The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. term of juvenile delinquent supervision. D.B. appeals, arguing that his federal juvenile delinquency proceedings should have been dismissed because he was not afforded a speedy trial as required by the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA), 18 U.S.C. § 5036, and that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

I.

The events giving rise to this case occurred near Porcupine, South Dakota, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. On the night of July 20, 2021, then-16-year-old D.B. and another juvenile, who was armed with a knife, forced their way into the residence shared by Chance Rowland and his mother Wanda. A violent scuffle ensued. Once inside, D.B. “pushed” Wanda “to the floor,” allowing the other juvenile to attack Chance and stab him multiple times in the back and head. D.B. later admitted that at the time he entered the Rowlands’ residence, he “knew an assault was going to take place.”

A Juvenile Information was filed in the District of South Dakota charging D.B. with first-degree burglary, assault with a dangerous weapon, and assault resulting in serious bodily injury.2 See 18 U.S.C. § 5032 (providing that juvenile delinquency proceedings in federal court “shall proceed by information”). D.B. was subsequently arrested and arraigned in federal court on July 30. He was ordered detained until an August 2 detention hearing. Following that hearing, the magistrate judge ordered that D.B. remain in custody pending trial. The district court scheduled D.B.’s trial for August 31. However, after D.B.’s counsel filed a motion to suppress on August 16, the district court entered the following order: “Based on the interests

2 D.B. was charged in federal court pursuant to the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, which authorizes “exclusive” federal jurisdiction over certain felony offenses committed by “[a]ny Indian . . . against the person or property of another Indian or other person . . . within the Indian country.” He was also charged as a juvenile under the FJDA, which provides various procedural safeguards to juveniles who are alleged to have committed a “violation of a law of the United States” prior to turning 18. 18 U.S.C. § 5031; see id. § 5032.

-2- of justice and 18 U.S.C. § 5036, the deadlines and court trial are canceled pending resolution of [the] Motion to Suppress.”

On September 3, D.B.’s counsel filed a motion asking the district court “to consider releasing” D.B. “on pretrial release to a third party custodian.” A hearing was held on September 16, and the magistrate judge ordered that D.B. be released that day to live with his mother, subject to several release conditions. By that point, D.B. had been in federal c