Renteria

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Ubaldo Renteria (“Renteria”) appeals his conviction and sentence for importing a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 960 and possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Renteria raises four issues on appeal. Because each of Renteria’s arguments fails, we affirm.

1. Speedy Trial Act

Renteria first argues that the district court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment for a violation of the Speedy Trial Act. “A district court’s application of the Speedy Trial Act is reviewed de novo.” *829 United States v. Nelson, 137 F.3d 1094 , 1108 (9th Cir.1998). “The court’s factual findings under the Speedy Trial Act are reviewed for clear error.” Id.

The Speedy Trial Act (“Act”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174 , states that where “a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial ... shall commence within seventy days from the filing date ... of the ... indictment....” 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (c)(1). Section 3161(h)(1) of the Act allows for the exclusion of certain periods of time in computing the 70-day limit, including “[a]ny period of delay resulting from…