U.S. v. Robey

In prosecution on theft charges arising out of defendant’s theft of cars, his alteration of VIN numbers on said cars and subsequent sale of said cars, record failed to support defendant’s claim that his speedy trial rights were violated under Speedy Trial Act and 6^th Amendment, even though record showed that 79 days had elapsed between his arrest and indictment and 1,076 days had elapsed between his initial appearance and start of trial. Only 13 days had elapsed on defendant’s pre-indictment Speedy Trial Act clock, where Dist. Ct. granted two ends-of-justice continuances; and (2) both continuances were justified where time was used by both parties to negotiate resolution of matter. Moreover, less than 70 Speedy Trial Act days had elapsed after defendant made his initial appearance, where record showed that defendant had received 10 ends-of-justice continuances that were justified on grounds that defendant needed time to conduct discovery, explore plea agreement negotiations, conduct his own psychological examination and to allow substitute counsel to prepare for trial. Further, no speedy trial violation under 6^th Amendment occurred since defendant was primarily responsible for instant delay. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in either granting govt.’s motion to dismiss 19 out of 25 counts in instant indictment, or finding that evidence that defendant's theft of 10 vehicles and alteration of their VIN numbers that were not included in charged offense constituted relevant conduct for sentencing purposes.