Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the appellant’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and whether the delay warranted some form of relief. Id. 25 . Id. at 102 (deriving these factors from the Supreme Court’s speedy trial analysis in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)). 26 . 63 M.J. at 136. 27 . It is also noteworthy that it took 1,179 days (approximately three years, two months) for the briefs to be filed after the Court of C 59 M.J. 34, 39-40 (C.A.A.F.2003). 33 . Moreno, 63 M.J. at 138-39. 34 . Dearing, 63 M.J. at 485; Moreno, 63 M.J. at 140. 35 . The Government's motions to file the declarations of Commander S.D. Rhoades and Mr. Robert Troidl are granted, and we have considered the contents of those declarations. 36 . United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353, 362 (C.A.A.F.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Harvey, 64 M.J. 13, 24-25 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that counsels conduct may be so egregious that no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it (B) recognizing that plain error exists only if failure to recognize the error would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings and that the plainerror doctrine is to be used sparingly solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result internal quotation marks omitted (C) holding that if trial courts verdict was based on hearsay statements of victim admitted in violation of the confrontation clause the error clearly would not only affect substantial rights but would seriously affect the fairness and integrity of the proceedings (D) holding that a tenmonth delay did not bar the motion where there was no demonstration of prejudice and because disqualification is in the public interest where there is an ethical violation (E) holding that where there is no finding of barker prejudice we will find a due process violation only when in balancing the other three factors the delay is so egregious that tolerating it would adversely affect the publics perception of the fairness and integrity of the military justice system
Output (English): holding that a tenmonth delay did not bar the motion where there was no demonstration of prejudice and because disqualification is in the public interest where there is an ethical violation