Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether a United States District Court properly handled the sentencing of a former methamphetamine dealer.
 He was originally sentenced to 24 months in prison, far shorter than what federal guidelines generally specify for crimes of that nature.
 Prosecutors appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which remanded the case back to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, which affirmed the original sentence after testimony relating the defendant's rehabilitation.
 The case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit again, and was again remanded.
 A different District Court judge gave him a 65-month sentence.
 The defendant then brought the case back to the Eighth Circuit, which confirmed the later ruling, and to then to the Supreme Court.
 Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion of the court, which ruled in favor of the defendant.
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) , was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the right of defendants in criminal cases to a speedy trial.
 The Court held that determinations of whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been violated must be made on a case-by-case basis, and set forth four factors to be considered in the determination.
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime.
 The Court vacated the rape and murder conviction in South Carolina of a man who had been denied the opportunity to present evidence of a third party's guilt, because the trial court believed the prosecutor's forensic evidence was too strong for the defendant's evidence to raise an inference of innocence.
 The Court ruled unanimously that this exclusion violated the right of a defendant to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because the strength of a prosecutor's case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant's evidence was too weak to be admissible.
Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (2009), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that when appointed counsel is responsible for delays in criminal proceedings, these delays are ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent when conducting speedy trial analysis under "Barker v. Wingo".
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the Speedy Trial Clause of the United States Constitution in state court proceedings.
 The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that in criminal prosecutions "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial" In this case, a defendant was tried for trespassing and the initial jury could not reach a verdict.
 The prosecutor did not either dismiss or reinstate the case, but used an unusual procedure to leave it open, potentially indefinitely.
 Klopfer argued that this denied him his right to a speedy trial.
 In deciding in his favor, the Supreme Court incorporated the speedy trial protections of the Sixth Amendment against the states.
Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the right to a speedy trial does not guarantee the right to speedy sentencing.
 It was decided on May 19, 2016.
Antonin Gregory Scalia ( ; March 11, 1936 – February 13, 2016) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2016.
 Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia was described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court's conservative wing.
The Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial" The Clause protects the defendant from delay between the presentation of the indictment or similar charging instrument and the beginning of trial.
Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006) , was a United States Supreme Court case involving the right to a speedy trial.
 Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that a defendant cannot prospectively waive the protections of the Speedy Trial Act.
 Justice Antonin Scalia filed a partial concurrence, objecting to Alito's use of legislative history.
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that when a defendant enters into a plea bargain, they waive their Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.
 A defendant may not waive this Constitutional right unless he does so knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently.
 The defendant was an African-American charged with robbery, which carried a death sentence in Alabama at the time.
 He pled guilty.

Question: When was the Associate of the Supreme Court of the United States who ruled that a defendant cannot prospectively waive the protections of the Speedy trial Act born?
Answer: March 11, 1936