Beydler

MEMORANDUM *

Terry Beydler appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss based on the Speedy Trial Act 1 (STA) and the district court’s inclusion of a jury instruction to which he objected. We affirm.

I. Denial of Motion to Dismiss

Beydler argues that the district court erred 2 in finding an “ends of justice” *476 excludable delay without an adequate inquiry on the record. We reject Beydler’s argument because we find that the district court’s inquiry into the reasons supporting the delay was sufficient.

The district court’s inquiry touched on the two STA factors applicable to this case: 3 (1) whether failure to find excludable delay would make continuing the proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of justice; 4 and (2) “[wjhether the failure to grant such a continuance ... would unreasonably deny the defendant or the Government continuity of counsel, or would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.” 5 The two reasons the district court relied upon satisfy the STA “ends of justice” requirements: the reasons directly…