United States v. Carl Romero

Appellant Carl Romero challenges his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) on the ground that it violated the Speedy Trial Act. He contends that the district court improperly excluded 81 days that he maintains amounted to an “unreasonable” delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(1)(F), which governs the exclusion of transportation-related periods of delay. Because Romero was incompetent to stand trial during the relevant period, we conclude that all of the days were properly excluded under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(4), and we therefore affirm.

I.

On November 3, 2012, Carl Romero was arrested by police officers who found a firearm on his person. Romero had previ- . ously been convicted of a felony in Wash ington State court. After his 2012 arrest, a grand jury returned an indictment against Romero, charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). Romero pleaded not guilty.

On the day of his arraignment, the court granted a motion by Romero’s appointed counsel requesting a mental competency evaluation. Following that evaluation and a competency hearing, the court found that…