What is the correct standard of review for a Speedy Trial Act violation where a motion to dismiss under the Act was filed, but the particular time period addressed on appeal was not specifically identified in the motion. The courts of appeals are divided on this issue. Four of the circuits, the D.C., First, Second, and Tenth hold that such claims are waived and are therefore not reviewable. Two circuits, the Third and Sixth, hold that such claims are merely forfeited and that plain error review applies, and four other circuits, the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh have applied plain error review even when no Speedy Trial Act motion to dismiss was filed at all. The question is whether any of these approaches are correct or whether they are all wrong under the terms of the Act and Zedner.

This case also presents a sentencing issue that has divided the circuits: Whether the categorical approach applies in determining whether an offense has an element of force and thereby qualifies as a "crime of Violence" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). The Third Circuit, in conflict with the holdings of at least ten other courts of appeals and the position of the government itself, has held that the categorical approach does not apply to this determination.

Speedy-Trial-Act-violation