Moniz

United States v. Moniz

Good Law
73 F. App'x 981
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 25, 2003Nos. 02-30232, 02-30243; D.C. Nos. CR-01-00151-a-JWS, CR-01-00151-JWSCalifornia975 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Frank Moniz challenges his conviction and sentence for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Alex Contreras claims that the enhancement of his sentence for firearm convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.

Speedy Trial Claim

Moniz’s right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 , and the Sixth Amendment were not violated.

*983 Section 3161(h)(7) of the Speedy Trial Act provides that a court shall exclude a “reasonable” period of delay “when the defendant is joined for trial with a codefendant as to whom the time for trial has not run and no motion for severance has been granted.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7). Moniz’s delay was caused by the district court’s attempt to achieve § 3161(h)(7)’s purpose of effectuating a joint trial. Although Moniz unsuccessfully moved for a severance, he suffered no actual prejudice. See United States v. Messer, 197 F.3d 330, 337-38 (9th Cir.1999). Our decision in United States v. Hall, 181 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.1999), does not help Moniz because a key factor in Hall’s finding of unreasonableness was the fact that multiple continuances were…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.