Filed: Dec. 30, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: Circuit Judges.Ali Addo, on brief pro se., Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, and John A., Capin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.him to trial within 70 days.F.3d 515, 526 (5th Cir.the 70 day period, such that no STA right was violated.
Not for publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-1896
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
ALI HUSSEIN ADDO
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Selya and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
Ali Addo, on brief pro se.
Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, and John A.
Capin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
December 30, 2003
Per Curiam. Ali Hussein Addo has appealed his criminal
conviction and sentence for one count of escape in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 751(a). We affirm.
On appeal, Addo contends that his right to a speedy trial
pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq.,
(hereinafter "STA") was violated and he is entitled to dismissal of
the indictment because, Addo alleges, he was not brought to trial
within 70 days from the date of his first appearance before the
court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). Addo has waived any right to
dismissal of the indictment because he failed to move for dismissal
prior to trial on the ground that the government failed to bring
him to trial within 70 days. See 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2).
Addo claims that he invoked the STA at a hearing on
October 31, 2001, but he is incorrect. Addo's urging of an early
trial at that hearing was neither an expressed invocation of the
STA nor, more particularly, was it a motion to dismiss on STA
grounds for failure to bring him to trial within 70 days. Although
Addo did invoke the STA and requested a dismissal of the indictment
in his closing trial argument, that motion came too late as waiver
occurs unless the motion to dismiss on this ground comes prior to
trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); see United States v. Bradfield,
113
F.3d 515, 526 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Gomez,
67 F.3d
1515, 1519 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v. Alvarez,
860 F.2d
801, 821-22 (7th Cir. 1988). In any event, even were this claim
-2-
not waived, the government has more than adequately demonstrated
that sufficient periods of time are properly excluded in computing
the 70 day period, such that no STA right was violated.
We have considered Addo's remaining claims on appeal and
conclude that they are similarly without merit.
Affirmed.
-3-