Court Opinion

ID: 9479212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:11:42.423894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:53.460416
License: Public Domain

SEITZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join in the majority’s decision that appellant’s conviction should be affirmed because I agree that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, that the baseball cap was properly admitted into evidence and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial. I write separately because I prefer to rest my conclusion that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated solely on the ground that the delay resulting from the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus, albeit filed in the court of appeals, was an “other proceeding concerning the defendant,” and thus automatically excluded under the general provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1).