United States v. Loughrin

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “not every day counts towards the seventy-day limit because of a multitude of statutory exclusions”
• finding that defendant waived specific objection he advanced on appeal by failing to include it in pretrial motion to dismiss based on STA
• “Accordingly, the [waived time period] at issue here do[es] not count toward Loughrin’s seventy- day tally.”
• interpreting § 3162(a)(2) “to mean 6 Appellate Case: 22-4124 Document: 148-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2025 Page: 7 that we may not conduct any review of [STA] arguments unraised below, not even for plain error”
• in distinguishing Gonzales, noting that “the record here is not nearly as sparse as that in Gonzales ”
• “We therefore conclude that a defendant seeking to challenge on appeal a district court’s order of continuance must do the same in his motion to dismiss to the district court. Because Loughrin did not object to the November 18 order, he cannot do so now.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).