US v. Enil Montoya Velasquez, No. 20-4514 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant appealed his convictions for two drug-related offenses, asserting that his jury trial on those charges did not occur within the timeframe established by the Speedy Trial Act. He also challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court procedurally erred in calculating the drug weight attributable to him and by not orally announcing during sentencing the discretionary conditions of supervised release imposed upon him in the written judgment.
The Fourth Circuit agreed with Defendant that the record does not show that the district court complied with the Act’s procedural requirements for granting an ends-of-justice continuance for the period between July 22, 2019, and November 7, 2019. Because that 108-day period exceeds the Speedy Trial Act’s 70-day timeframe within which his trial had to occur, the court reversed the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss these two counts and vacate those convictions. The court further explained that vacating the convictions requires vacating Defendant’s entire sentence, which in turn moots his two sentencing challenges. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.