United States v. James Daychild, United States of America v. Patrick O. Neiss

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims ordinarily are not reviewed on direct appeal
• excluding time resulting from continuances that were requested by counsel “without [the defendant]’s knowledge or consent”
• affirming position that “district courts are to ‘calculate the 70-day period excluding the day the motion was filed and the day it was heard” (quoting United States v. Aviles, 170 F.3d 863, 869 (9th Cir. 1999)
• “[T]he district court’s five-day exclusion of the period between [defendant’s] arraignment and the detention/bond hearing held at his request ... was proper.”
• no clear error where defendant was directly involved in a central act of the conspiracy, i.e., the exchange of drugs for money
• reliance on a former standard of review when making the decision whether to appeal is not substantive enough to warrant protection under the Due Process Clause

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).