Opinion ID: 2791468
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: what caused the delay,

Text: 3. whether the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial, and 1 Mr. Velarde argues that he did not consent to his attorney’s request for a continuance. But, the record on appeal does not include any evidence (or even an allegation) that Mr. Velarde asked his attorney to file a pretrial motion to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act. 3 4. whether the delay was prejudicial to the defendant. United States v. Batie, 433 F.3d 1287, 1290 (10th Cir. 2006). Though no single factor is dispositive, the length of the delay is a threshold requirement; thus, we need not address the second, third, and fourth factors unless the delay is “‘presumptively prejudicial.’” United States v. Dirden, 38 F.3d 1131, 1137 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Tranakos, 911 F.2d 1422, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990)).