United States v. Dragone

Second Circuit

United States v. Dragone

78 F.3d 65, 1996 WL 115384

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided March 8, 1996·No. No. 1144, Docket 95-1475·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the district court’s exercise of its discretion under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2), to dismiss “with prejudice” for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 7, 1995. See United States v. Upton, 921 F.Supp. 100 (E.D.N.Y.1995). Because of our disposition of this matter, we need not address the government’s challenge to the district court’s conclusion that the pretrial delay in this case violated the Constitution’s Speedy Trial Clause.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the district court’s exercise of its discretion under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2), to dismiss “with prejudice” for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 7, 1995. See United States v. Upton, 921 F.Supp. 100 (E.D.N.Y.1995). Because of our disposition of this matter, we need not address the government’s challenge to the district court’s conclusion that the pretrial delay in this case violated the Constitution’s Speedy Trial Clause.

United States v. Dragone, 78 F.3d 65, 1996 WL 115384 (2d Cir. 1996).

Pincite

78 F.3d 65 (United States v. Dragone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related