Whether, in light of this Court's ruling in Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 126 S. Ct. 1976, 164 L. Ed. 2D 749 (2006) and Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 74 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1982), may a Court of Appeals, subsequent to a defendant filing a timely notice of appeal challenging a district court's oral and written denial of defendant's motion for release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3164(c), consider an additional order entered after the notice of appeal by the district court offering speedy trial findings, analysis, and calculations not made prior to the oral and written denial appealed from?

2. Whether, in absence of an oral or written order entered into the docket of a criminal case at the outset of a specific period of time, may the period of time in question subsequently be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7) by an order operating retroactively?

3. Whether, blanket, district-wide findings made by a single district judge, without case-specific considerations or findings addressing the needs of individual cases, may operate to toll the speedy trial clock in every criminal case within a district?

4. Whether a district court may order an open-ended continuance, containing no definitive end date, under 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A)?

Whether a district court may enter a post-appeal order to place findings and calculations on the record of a case to explain an earlier oral ruling denying a defendant's § 3164 motion for release