Task: Text Completion
Input (English): regarding the Marshals’ advance notice requirement did not, standing alone, provide the court with a basis upon which to grant a continuance under § 3161(h)(3). Compare United States v. Burrell, 634 F.3d 284, 292 (5th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (concluding the essential witness exclusion could not apply where the government failed to present any evidence showing its witness’s presence could not be obtained through reasonable efforts) and United States v. Ferguson, 574 F.Supp.2d 111, 115 (D.D.C.2008) (concluding an exclusion of time under § 3161(h)(3) was not warranted where the government failed to present any evidence to support its claim the Marshals were unable to transport two of its witnesses in time for trial) with United States v. Patterson, 277 F.3d 709, 711-12 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). After concluding the district court violated 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the district court did not err in granting a continuance where the government presented testimony from a deputy marshal describing the hardship it would work on the agency (B) holding that trial court did not err (C) holding that the district court did not err in instructing the jury not to draw any adverse inferences from the governments failure to call a witness because the witness did not have a relationship with the government such that one would expect him to give testimony in favor of the government (D) holding that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to county on monell claim where plaintiff presented no evidence that similar conduct occurred in the past (E) holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment
Output (English): (A)