Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): statutory considerations favored dismissal without prejudice. “[T]he district court’s judgment of how opposing considerations balance should not lightly be disturbed.” Taylor, 487 U.S. at 337, 108 S.Ct. 2413. We discern no reason to overturn the district court’s dismissal of the indictment without prejudice. AFFIRMED. 1 . In this appeal, Defendant does not dispute the propriety of trying him jointly with his codefendants. 2 . Although the Supreme Court has never held that a delay attributed to a codefendant must be reasonable in order to exclude that time from a defendant’s speedy trial clock, it has held that subsections of § 3161 may need to be analyzed together before properly excluding a period of delay. See Bloate v. United States, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1345, 176 L.Ed.2d 54 (2010) (<HOLDING>). Thus, our circuit’s precedent requiring that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the time granted to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excludable under  3161h1 but may be excluded only when a court grants a continuance based on appropriate findings under  3161h7 (B) holding that where a defendant acquiesces in a continuance that time is excluded from the speedy trial calculation (C) holding that time excluded from a speedy trial clock for pretrial motion preparation is not automatically excluded under  3161h1 but may only be excluded when a court makes appropriate reasonableness findings under  3161h7 (D) holding that motion challenging pretrial detention was excludable under act (E) holding that time granted for preparing pretrial motions is not automatically excludable under  3161h1 but is excludable only after the district court enters appropriate findings under  3161h7a
Output (English): holding that motion challenging pretrial detention was excludable under act