18 U.S.C. § 3161(H)

19 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Darby
  744 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 96×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, abuse of discretion in denying continuances, or denial of a fair trial. It also rejected claims regarding jurisdiction, sentencing, and sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Wellington
  754 F.2d 1457· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in its rulings on the indictment amendment, jury instructions, evidence admissibility, severance, sufficiency of evidence, Speedy Trial Act claims, juror questionnaire use, or other miscellaneous assi
• United States v. Montoya
  827 F.2d 143· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the time spent preparing for or engaging in other proceedings, including plea bargaining, is excludable from the Speedy Trial Act's time limits, and that the seventy-day clock for trial commencement begins upon appearance in the charging district, not merely u
• United States v. Emmett Lovell Nabors
  901 F.2d 1351· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-27 ·cited 36×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the officers' non-compliance with the knock-and-announce rule, that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, and that ATF agents are protected under 18 U.S.C. § 111.
• United States v. Doran
  882 F.2d 1511· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to make contemporaneous findings required by the Speedy Trial Act for an "ends of justice" continuance, leading to dismissal of two counts. The court also found no presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness for the superseding
• United States v. Claudio
  806 F.2d 334· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-20 ·cited 34×
  Continued pretrial detention of defendants for fourteen months, with an anticipated total of over two years, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, even when based on risk of flight.
• United States v. Rivera
  844 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1988-02-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated because the clock resumed upon the mandate's issuance, not earlier, and that the defendant's prosecution was not barred by a prior plea agreement as the conspiracies were distinct.
• United States v. Eakes
  783 F.2d 499· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's continuance did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, and the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the substance was cocaine. However, the judgment erroneously recited convictions for charges not in the indictment.
• United States v. Crane
  776 F.2d 600· 6th Cir.· 1985-11-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment because the delay in commencing trial was not properly excluded under the Speedy Trial Act's 'ends of justice' provision, as the reasons for the continuance were not the actual m
• United States v. Wooten
  688 F.2d 941· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for importation and possession, rejecting claims of prosecutorial misconduct, and interpreting the Speedy Trial Act's minimum trial period.
• The United States v. Felton
  811 F.2d 190· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-30 ·cited 19×
  The majority's interpretation of the Speedy Trial Act, particularly section 3161(h)(1)(F), allows for excessive delays in bringing cases to trial by permitting indefinite postponements of pre-trial motions.
• United States v. Studnicka
  777 F.2d 652· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's Speedy Trial Act claims were meritless due to excludable delays, the evidence was sufficient for the firearm convictions, and the defendant failed to preserve the issue of impeachment evidence for appeal.
• United States v. Kucik
  909 F.2d 206· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-30 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the jury instructions were proper, and the restitution order was valid.
• United States v. Freeman Monger
  879 F.2d 218· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated because the government's pretrial motion tolled the speedy trial clock and the magistrate did not err in granting a continuance based on the ends of justice.
• United States v. Vasquez
  918 F.2d 329· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the delays in the proceedings were excludable under the Speedy Trial Act and did not violate the defendants' constitutional rights.
• United States v. Louis
  11th Cir.· 2025-08-11
  The court held that the defendant waived his statutory Speedy Trial Act claim by failing to file a valid motion to dismiss and that his Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim failed because he could not demonstrate prejudice from the delay.
• United States v. Al-Arian
  267 F. Supp. 2d 1258· M.D. Fla.· 2003-06-12
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act's seventy-day clock is tolled by pretrial motions filed by co-defendants and that the government's interest in protecting classified information outweighs defense counsel's privacy concerns regarding security clearances.