Gilmore

United States v. Gilmore

Good Law
105 F. App'x 937
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 12, 2004No. 03-30444California208 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The Speedy Trial Act does not require dismissal because it includes “delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion.” 1 Exclusion is without regard to the type of motion filed, including routine, unopposed motions, 2 and without regard to whether the motion necessitates delay. 3 Excluding the time when motions were pending, the trial began within 70 days.

The district court did not abuse it discretion in denying the motion for mistrial, because the court’s admonition adequately cured the witness’s non-responsive and inappropriate remark.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the tapes, because they were adequately authenticated by the agent and the co-worker. 5 Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support the denial of the motion for directed verdict.

AFFIRMED

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

. 18U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F).

. United States v. Daychild, 357 F.3d 1082 , 1095 (9th Cir.2004).

. See id.

.…

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.