Bloate v. United States

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 08–728. Argued October 6, 2009—Decided March 8, 2010

The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 (Act) requires a criminal defendant’s trial

to commence within 70 days of his indictment or initial appearance,

18 U. S. C. §3161(c)(1), and entitles him to dismissal of the charges if

that deadline is not met, §3162(a)(2). As relevant here, the Act

automatically excludes from the 70-day period “delay resulting from

. . . proceedings concerning the defendant,” 18 U. S. C. A. §3161(h)(1)

(hereinafter subsection (h)(1)), and separately permits a district court

to exclude “delay resulting from a continuance” it grants, provided

the court makes findings required by §3161(h)(7) (hereinafter subsec

tion (h)(7)). Petitioner’s indictment on federal firearm and drug pos

session charges started the 70-day clock on August 24, 2006. After

petitioner’s arraignment, the Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to

file pretrial motions by September 13. On September 7, the court

granted petitioner’s motion to extend that deadline, but on the new

due date, September 25, petitioner waived his right to file pretrial

motions. On October 4, the Magistrate Judge found the waiver vol

untary and intelligent. Over the next three months, petitioner’s trial

was delayed several times, often at petitioner’s instigation. On Feb

ruary 19, 2007—179 days after he was indicted—he moved to dismiss

the indictment, claiming that the Act’s 70-day limit had elapsed. In

denying the motion, the District Court excluded the time from Sep

tember 7 through October 4 as pretrial motion preparation time. At

trial, petitioner was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to

concurrent prison terms. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of

the motion to dismiss, holding that the period from September 7

through October 4 was automatically excludable from the 70-day

limit under subsection (h)(1).

Held: The time granted to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically

2 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

Syllabus

excludable from the 70-day limit under subsection (h)(1). Such time

may be excluded only when a district court grants a continuance

based on appropriate findings under subsection (h)(7). Pp. 6–18.

(a) The delay at issue is governed by subsection (h)(1)(D) (hereinaf

ter subparagraph (D)), the enumerated category that renders auto

matically excludable “delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from

the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or

other prompt disposition of, such motion.” This provision communi

cates Congress’ judgment that pretrial motion-related delay is auto

matically excludable only from the time a pretrial motion is filed

through a specified hearing or disposition point, and that other pre

trial motion-related delay is excludable only if it results in a continu

ance under subsection (h)(7). This limitation is significant because

Congress knew how to define the boundaries of subsection (h)(1)’s

enumerated exclusions broadly when it so desired. Although the pe

riod of delay the Government seeks to exclude in this case results

from a proceeding governed by subparagraph (D), that period pre

cedes the first day upon which Congress specified that such delay

may be excluded automatically and thus is not automatically exclud

able. Pp. 7–10.

(b) This analysis resolves the automatic excludability inquiry be

cause “[a] specific provision” (here, subparagraph (D)) “controls one[s]

of more general application” (here, subsections (h)(1) and (h)(7)).

Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U. S. 395, 407. A contrary result

would depart from the statute in a manner that underscores the pro

priety of this Court’s approach. Subsection (h)(1)’s phrase “including

but not limited to” does not show that subsection (h)(1) permits auto

matic exclusion of delay related to an enumerated category of pro

ceedings, but outside the boundaries set forth in the subparagraph

expressly addressed to that category. That would confuse the illus

trative nature of the subsection’s list of categories with the contents

of the categories themselves. Reading the “including but not limited

to” clause to modify the contents of each subparagraph in the list as

well as the list itself would violate settled statutory construction

principles by ignoring subsection (h)(1)’s structure and grammar and

in so doing rendering even the clearest of the subparagraphs inde

terminate and virtually superfluous. See generally id., at 410. Sub

section (h)(1)’s context supports this Court’s conclusion. Subsection

(h)(7) provides that delay “resulting from a continuance granted by

any judge” may be excluded, but only if the judge finds that “the ends

of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of

the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,” and records those

findings. In setting forth the statutory factors justifying a subsection

(h)(7) continuance, Congress twice recognized the importance of ade

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 3

Syllabus

quate pretrial preparation time. See §§3161(h)(7)(B)(ii),

3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court’s determination that the delay at issue

is not automatically excludable gives full effect to subsection (h)(7),

and respects its provisions for excluding certain types of delay only

where a district court makes findings justifying the exclusion. The

Court’s precedents also support this reading of subsection (h)(1). See

Zedner v. United States, 547 U. S. 489, 502. Pp. 10–16.

(c) The Act does not force a district court to choose between reject

ing a defendant’s request for time to prepare pretrial motions and

risking dismissal of the indictment if preparation time delays the

trial. A court may still exclude preparation time under subsection

(h)(7) by granting a continuance for that purpose based on recorded

findings. Subsection (h)(7) provides “[m]uch of the Act’s flexibility,”

Zedner, 547 U. S., at 498, giving district courts “discretion . . . to ac

commodate limited delays for case-specific needs,” id., at 499. The

Government suggests that a district court may fail to make the nec

essary subsection (h)(7) findings, leading to a windfall gain for a de

fendant who induces delay beyond the 70-day limit. But dismissal

need not represent a windfall. If the court dismisses the charges

without prejudice, the Government may refile charges or reindict. In

ruling on a motion to dismiss under the Act, the district court should

consider, inter alia, the party responsible for the delay. Pp. 16–18.

(d) This Court does not consider whether any of the Act’s other ex

clusions would apply to all or part of the September 7 through Octo

ber 4 period that is not automatically excludable under subsection

(h)(1). P. 18.

534 F. 3d 893, reversed and remanded.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,

C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ.,

joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dis

senting opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash

ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 08–728

_________________

TAYLOR JAMES BLOATE, PETITIONER v. UNITED

STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

[March 8, 2010]

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 (Speedy Trial Act or Act),

18 U. S. C. §3161 et seq., requires that a criminal defen

dant’s trial commence within 70 days after he is charged

or makes an initial appearance, whichever is later, see

§3161(c)(1), and entitles him to dismissal of the charges if

that deadline is not met, §3162(a)(2). The Act, however,

excludes from the 70-day period delays due to certain

enumerated events. §3161(h). As relevant here, “delay

resulting from . . . proceedings concerning the defendant”

is automatically excludable from a Speedy Trial Act calcu

lation.1 18 U. S. C. A. §3161(h)(1) (Supp. 2009) (hereinaf

——————

1 The excludability of delay “resulting from . . . proceedings” under

subsection (h)(1) is “automatic” in the sense that a district court must

exclude such delay from a Speedy Trial Act calculation without any

further analysis as to whether the benefit of the delay outweighs its

cost. For delays resulting from proceedings under subsection (h)(1),

Congress already has determined that the benefit of such delay out

weighs its cost to a speedy trial, regardless of the specifics of the case.

The word “automatic” serves as a useful shorthand. See, e.g., United

States v. Lucky, 569 F. 3d 101, 106 (CA2 2009) (“Some exclusions are

automatic. Other exclusions require judicial action” (citation omitted)).

2 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

ter subsection (h)(1)). In addition, “delay resulting from a

continuance” granted by the district court may be excluded

if the district court makes the findings required by

§3161(h)(7) (hereinafter subsection (h)(7)).

This case requires us to decide the narrow question

whether time granted to a party to prepare pretrial mo

tions is automatically excludable from the Act’s 70-day

limit under subsection (h)(1), or whether such time may be

excluded only if a court makes case-specific findings under

subsection (h)(7). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit held that pretrial motion preparation time is auto

matically excludable under subsection (h)(1).2 534 F. 3d

893, 898 (2008). We granted certiorari, 556 U. S. ___

(2009), and now reverse.

I

A

On August 2, 2006, police officers surveilling an apart

ment building for drug activity saw petitioner and his

girlfriend enter a car parked in front of the building and

drive away. After observing petitioner commit several

traffic violations, the officers stopped the vehicle. They

approached the car and noticed two small bags of cocaine

on petitioner’s lap. After the officers read petitioner his

Miranda warnings, petitioner made inculpatory state

ments. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).

Petitioner denied any association with the apartment

building where the car had been parked, but his girlfriend

admitted that she lived there and consented to a search of

——————

2 After the Eighth Circuit issued its decision below, Congress passed

the Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of 2008,

122 Stat. 4291, which made technical changes to the Speedy Trial Act,

including the renumbering of several provisions. The amendments did

not change the substance of any provision relevant here. Accordingly,

in this opinion, including our discussions of the orders and decisions

under review, we refer only to the current version of the Act.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 3

Opinion of the Court

her residence. The officers who conducted the search

uncovered several items that belonged to petitioner, in

cluding an identification card, cocaine, three firearms,

ammunition, and a bulletproof vest. The police arrested

petitioner the next day.

On August 24, a grand jury indicted petitioner for being

a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U. S. C. §922(g)(1), and for knowing and intentional pos

session with intent to distribute more than five grams of

cocaine, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §841(a)(1). The August

24 indictment started the Speedy Trial Act’s 70-day clock.

See 18 U. S. C. §3161(c)(1). After petitioner’s arraignment

on September 1, a Magistrate Judge entered a scheduling

order requiring, inter alia, that the parties file pretrial

motions by September 13.

On September 7, petitioner filed a motion to extend the

deadline to file pretrial motions from September 13 to

September 21. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion

and extended the deadline by an extra four days beyond

petitioner’s request, to September 25. On September 25,

however, petitioner filed a “Waiver of Pretrial Motions”

advising the court that he did not wish to file any pretrial

motions.

On October 4, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing to

consider petitioner’s “waiver,” at which petitioner con

firmed that he wished to waive his right to file pretrial

motions. After a colloquy, the Magistrate Judge found

that petitioner’s waiver was voluntary and intelligent.

Over the next three months, petitioner’s trial was de

layed for several reasons. Though these delays are not

directly relevant to the question presented here, we re

count them to explain the full context in which that ques

tion arises. On November 8, petitioner moved to continue

the trial date, stating that his counsel needed additional

time to prepare for trial. The District Court granted the

motion and reset the trial for December 18.

4 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

The parties then met informally and prepared a plea

agreement, which they provided to the court. The District

Court scheduled a change of plea hearing for December 20.

At the hearing, however, petitioner declined to implement

the agreement and requested a new attorney. The District

Court rescheduled the trial for February 26, 2007, granted

petitioner’s attorney’s subsequent motion to withdraw,

and appointed new counsel.

On February 19, 2007—179 days after petitioner was

indicted—petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment,

claiming that the Act’s 70-day limit had elapsed. The

District Court denied the motion. In calculating how

many of the 179 days counted toward the 70-day limit, the

District Judge excluded the period from September 7

through October 4 as “within the extension of time

granted to file pretrial motions.”3 Order in No.

4:06CR518–SNL (ED Mo.), Doc. 44, p. 2.

In late February, a matter arose in an unrelated case on

the District Court’s docket, which required the court to

reschedule petitioner’s trial. After obtaining the consent

of the parties and finding that a continuance would serve

the public interest, the District Court continued peti

tioner’s trial from February 26 to March 5, 2007. Peti

tioner’s 2-day trial began on that date. The jury found

petitioner guilty on both counts and the District Court

——————

3 In addition, the District Judge excluded the continuance granted on

November 9 (resetting the trial for December 18) under §3161(h)(7)(A),

and excluded the time from November 9 through December 20 as delay

resulting from a plea agreement under §3161(h)(1)(G). He further

excluded the time from December 20 through February 26 “as it . . .

resulted from [petitioner’s] election not to implement a plea agreement,

and his request to the court to have new counsel appointed for him.”

Order in No. 4:06CR518–SNL (ED Mo.), Doc. 44, p. 3. The judge stated

on the record that these continuances were necessary to ensure that

“the ends of justice could more properly be served” and “obviously

outweighed the best interest of the public and the defendant to a

Speedy Trial.” Ibid.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 5

Opinion of the Court

later sentenced him to concurrent 30-year terms of

imprisonment.

B

Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentence to the

Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the denial of his motion to

dismiss for a Speedy Trial Act violation. As relevant, the

Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that the

time from September 7 (the original deadline for filing

pretrial motions) through October 4 (when the trial court

held a hearing on petitioner’s decision to waive the right to

file pretrial motions) was excludable from the Act’s 70-day

limit. Although the District Court did not identify which

provision of the Act supported this exclusion, the Court of

Appeals held that “pretrial motion preparation time” is

automatically excludable under subsection (h)(1)—which

covers “delay resulting from other proceedings concerning

the defendant”—as long as “the [district] court specifically

grants time for that purpose.” 534 F. 3d, at 897.4 In

reaching this conclusion, the Eighth Circuit joined seven

other Courts of Appeals that interpret subsection (h)(1)

the same way.5 Two Courts of Appeals, the Fourth and

——————

4 In addition, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order

excluding the time from November 9 to, and including, December 18

and from December 20 to, and including, February 23 as delays result

ing from continuances under §3161(h)(7) and §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), respec

tively. The Court of Appeals did not address whether to exclude De

cember 19. Nor did it decide whether to exclude the delay from

February 23 to March 5, because even if those days were included,

“only 58 days passed between [petitioner]’s indictment and trial, fewer

than the 70 allowed by the Speedy Trial Act.” 534 F. 3d, at 900.

5 See United States v. Oberoi, 547 F. 3d 436, 448–451 (CA2 2008); 534

F. 3d 893, 897–898 (CA8 2008) (case below); United States v. Mejia, 82

F. 3d 1032, 1035–1036 (CA11 1996); United States v. Lewis, 980 F. 2d

555, 564 (CA9 1992); United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 F. 2d

902, 912–915 (per curiam), opinion supplemented on other grounds on

rehearing, 881 F. 2d 866 (CA10 1989) (per curiam); United States v.

Wilson, 835 F. 2d 1440, 1444–1445 (CADC 1987); United States v.

6 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

Sixth Circuits, interpret subsection (h)(1) differently,

holding that time for preparing pretrial motions is outside

subsection (h)(1)’s scope.6 We granted certiorari to resolve

this conflict.

II

As noted, the Speedy Trial Act requires that a criminal

defendant’s trial commence within 70 days of a defen

dant’s initial appearance or indictment, but excludes from

the 70-day period days lost to certain types of delay.

Section 3161(h) specifies the types of delays that are ex

cludable from the calculation. Some of these delays are

excludable only if the district court makes certain findings

enumerated in the statute. See §3161(h)(7). Other delays

are automatically excludable, i.e., they may be excluded

without district court findings. As relevant here, subsec

tion (h)(1) requires the automatic exclusion of “[a]ny pe

riod of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning

the defendant, including but not limited to” periods of

delay resulting from eight enumerated subcategories of

proceedings.7 The Government contends that the time the

——————

Tibboel, 753 F. 2d 608, 610 (CA7 1985); United States v. Jodoin, 672

F. 2d 232, 237–239 (CA1 1982).

6 See United States v. Jarrell, 147 F. 3d 315, 317–318 (CA4 1998);

United States v. Moran, 998 F. 2d 1368, 1370–1371 (CA6 1993).

7 The full text of subsection (h)(1) reads as follows:

“(h) The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the

time within which an information or an indictment must be filed, or in

computing the time within which the trial of any such offense must

commence:

“(1) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning

the defendant, including but not limited to—

“(A) delay resulting from any proceeding, including any examinations,

to determine the mental competency or physical capacity of the defen

dant;

“(B) delay resulting from trial with respect to other charges against the

defendant;

“(C) delay resulting from any interlocutory appeal;

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 7

Opinion of the Court

District Court granted petitioner to prepare his pretrial

motions is automatically excludable under subsection

(h)(1). We disagree, and conclude that such time may be

excluded only when a district court enters appropriate

findings under subsection (h)(7).

A

The eight subparagraphs in subsection (h)(1) address

the automatic excludability of delay generated for certain

enumerated purposes. Thus, we first consider whether

the delay at issue in this case is governed by one of these

subparagraphs. It is.

The delay at issue was granted to allow petitioner suffi

cient time to file pretrial motions.8 Subsection (h)(1)(D)

(hereinafter subparagraph (D)) renders automatically

excludable “delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from

the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the

hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion.”

Read, as it must be, in the context of subsection (h), this

——————

“(D) delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the

motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt

disposition of, such motion;

“(E) delay resulting from any proceeding relating to the transfer of a

case or the removal of any defendant from another district under the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure;

“(F) delay resulting from transportation of any defendant from another

district, or to and from places of examination or hospitalization, except

that any time consumed in excess of ten days from the date an order of

removal or an order directing such transportation, and the defendant’s

arrival at the destination shall be presumed to be unreasonable;

“(G) delay resulting from consideration by the court of a proposed plea

agreement to be entered into by the defendant and the attorney for the

Government; and

“(H) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty

days, during which any proceeding concerning the defendant is actually

under advisement by the court.”

8 See Defendant’s Request for Additional Time To File Pre-trial Mo

tions in No. 4:06CR518–SNL (TCM) (ED Mo.), Doc. 19; Order in No.

4:06CR518–SNL (ED Mo.), Doc. 44 (granting same).

8 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

text governs the automatic excludability of delays “result

ing” from a specific category of “proceedings concerning

the defendant,” namely, proceedings involving pretrial

motions.9 Because the delay at issue here results from a

decision granting time to prepare pretrial motions, if not

from a pretrial motion itself (the defendant’s request for

additional time), it is governed by subparagraph (D). But

that does not make the delay at issue here automatically

excludable.

Subparagraph (D) does not subject all pretrial motion

related delay to automatic exclusion. Instead, it renders

automatically excludable only the delay that occurs “from

the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the

hearing on, or other prompt disposition of” the motion.

——————

9 Thedissent argues that this conclusion lacks “force” because “[i]t is

at least doubtful . . . that the delay at issue in the present case is delay

‘resulting from [a] pretrial motion.’ ” Post, at 4 (opinion of ALITO, J.).

According to the dissent, “delay ‘resulting from’ a pretrial motion is

delay that occurs as a consequence of such a motion,” which the “type of

delay involved in the present case” does not.” Post, at 4–5 (arguing that

the delay in this case instead “occurs as a consequence of the court’s

granting of a defense request for an extension of time”).

The dissent’s position, which rests upon a dictionary definition of two

isolated words, does not account for the governing statutory context.

For the reasons we explain, the text and structure of subsection (h)

support our conclusion that subparagraph (D) governs the automatic

excludability of delays “resulting from” proceedings involving pretrial

motions. As the dissent concedes, defining “resulting from” to mean “as

a consequence of” does not foreclose our interpretation. That is because

the dissent’s definition of “resulting from” leaves ample room to con

clude that the delay at issue here is “a consequence of” the category of

proceedings covered by subparagraph (D), whether one views the delay

“as a consequence of” a proceeding involving pretrial motions, or “as a

consequence of” a pretrial motion itself (the defense request for addi

tional time). At bottom, the dissent’s position is not that our interpre

tation is foreclosed by the Act; it is that the dissent’s interpretation is

preferable. We disagree because the dissent’s interpretation, among

other things, fails to account fully for the text and structure of subsec

tion (h)(1) and renders much of subsection (h)(7) a nullity.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 9

Opinion of the Court

(Emphasis added.) In so doing, the provision communi

cates Congress’ judgment that delay resulting from pre

trial motions is automatically excludable, i.e., excludable

without district court findings, only from the time a mo

tion is filed through the hearing or disposition point speci

fied in the subparagraph, and that other periods of pre

trial motion-related delay are excludable only when

accompanied by district court findings.10

This limitation is significant because Congress knew

how to define the boundaries of an enumerated exclusion

broadly when it so desired. Subsection (h)(1)(A) (hereinaf

ter subparagraph (A)), for example, provides for the auto

matic exclusion of “delay resulting from any proceeding,

including any examinations, to determine the mental

competency or physical capacity of the defendant.” (Em

phasis added.) With the word “including,” Congress indi

cated that other competency-related proceedings besides

“examinations” might fall within subparagraph (A)’s

automatic exclusion. In subparagraph (D), by contrast,

Congress declined to use an expansive or illustrative term

such as “including,” and provided instead that only pre

trial motion-related delay “from the filing” of a motion to

the hearing or disposition point specified in the provision

is automatically excludable from the Act’s 70-day limit.

Thus, although the period of delay the Government

seeks to exclude in this case results from a proceeding

——————

10 This conclusion flows not only from subparagraph (D)’s text, but

also from its structure. As noted, subparagraph (D) excludes from the

70-day period “delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing

of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt

disposition of, such motion.” In this case, the comma after the first

phrase indicates that the second phrase modifies the scope of exclud

able delay referred to in the first. Thus, subparagraph (D)’s automatic

exclusion for delay “resulting from” a pretrial motion is limited to delay

that occurs from the filing of the motion through the endpoints identi

fied in the provision.

10 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

governed by subparagraph (D), that period precedes the

first day upon which Congress specified that such delay

may be automatically excluded. The result is that the

pretrial motion preparation time at issue in this case is

not automatically excludable.11

B

The foregoing analysis resolves our inquiry into auto

matic excludability because “[a] specific provision” (here,

subparagraph (D)) “controls one[s] of more general appli

cation” (here, subsections (h)(1) and (h)(7)). Gozlon-Peretz

v. United States, 498 U. S. 395, 407 (1991). In arguing

that this principle applies, but requires a result different

from the one we reach, the dissent (like the Government

and several Courts of Appeals) departs from the statute in

a manner that underscores the propriety of our approach.

1

There is no question that subparagraph (D) is more

specific than the “general” language in subsection (h)(1),

post, at 2, 6, or that “[g]eneral language of a statutory

provision, although broad enough to include it, will not be

held to apply to a matter specifically dealt with in another

part of the same enactment,” D. Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v.

Popkin, 285 U. S. 204, 208 (1932). We part company with

the dissent because we conclude that subparagraph (D)

governs the period of delay at issue in this case. The

dissent does not object to this conclusion on the ground

that it is foreclosed by the statute. See post, at 5 (assert

ing that the delay at issue in this case is “not necessarily”

covered by subparagraph (D)). Instead, it joins the Gov

——————

11 Whether the defendant actually files a pretrial motion for which he

requests additional time is irrelevant to this analysis. Even if he files

such a motion, that filing may not be used to bootstrap into the period

of automatically excludable delay pre-filing preparation time that

subparagraph (D) does not render automatically excludable.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 11

Opinion of the Court

ernment in asserting that the Act is amenable to another

interpretation that would avoid the “strange result” that

“petitioner may be entitled to dismissal of the charges

against him because his attorney persuaded a Magistrate

Judge to give the defense additional time to prepare pre

trial motions and thus delayed the commencement of his

trial.” Post, at 1. This argument takes aim at an exagger

ated target. Because we conclude that the type of delay at

issue here is excludable under subsection (h)(7), courts can

in future cases easily avoid the result the dissent decries,

a result that is not certain even in this case. See infra, at

17–18. And even if dismissal is ultimately required on

remand, a desire to avoid this result does not justify read

ing subsection (h)(1) (and specifically its reference to

“other proceedings concerning the defendant”) to permit

automatic exclusion of delay resulting from virtually any

decision to continue a deadline.

The dissent first argues that the delay in this case is

automatically excludable under subsection (h)(1) because

the provision’s use of the phrase “including but not limited

to” shows that subsection (h)(1) permits automatic exclu

sion of delays beyond those covered by its enumerated

subparagraphs. See post, at 3; see also United States v.

Oberoi, 547 F. 3d 436, 450 (CA2 2008). This argument

confuses the illustrative nature of subsection (h)(1)’s list of

categories of excludable delay (each of which is repre

sented by a subparagraph) with the contents of the catego

ries themselves. That the list of categories is illustrative

rather than exhaustive in no way undermines our conclu

sion that a delay that falls within the category of delay

addressed by subparagraph (D) is governed by the limits

in that subparagraph. The “including but not limited to”

clause would affect our conclusion only if one read it to

modify the contents of subparagraph (D) as well as the list

itself. As noted, such a reading would violate settled

principles of statutory construction because it would ig

12 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

nore the structure and grammar of subsection (h)(1), and

in so doing render even the clearest of the subparagraphs

indeterminate and virtually superfluous. See Gozlon-

Peretz, supra, at 410; Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167,

174 (2001) (“[A] statute ought, upon the whole, to be so

construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence,

or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant” (inter

nal quotation marks omitted)). Our reading avoids these

problems by treating the list as illustrative, but construing

each of the eight subparagraphs in (h)(1) to govern, con

clusively unless the subparagraph itself indicates other

wise, see, e.g., §3161(h)(1)(A); supra, at 9, the automatic

excludability of the delay resulting from the category of

proceedings it addresses.

The dissent responds that, even if subparagraph (D)’s

limits are conclusive rather than merely illustrative, we

should automatically exclude the delay at issue here under

subsection (h)(1)’s opening clause, see post, at 2, because it

is not “clear” that the delay is governed by the more spe

cific (and restrictive) language in subparagraph (D). Post,

at 5. We decline this invitation to use the alleged uncer

tainty in subparagraph (D)’s scope as a justification for

disregarding its limits and instead expanding, through

liberal interpretation of subsection (h)(1)’s generic opening

clause,12 what the dissent itself describes as the automatic

exclusion “exceptio[n]” to the Act’s 70-day period and the

Act’s “general rule” requiring “ends-of-justice findings for

——————

12 The dissent argues that the relevant “proceeding” in this case is the

District Court’s disposition of petitioner’s motion for additional time to

file pretrial motions. See post, at 2. If that were correct, any order

disposing of a motion—including a pretrial motion under subparagraph

(D)—would be a separate “proceeding,” and any resulting delay would

be automatically excludable. The dissent’s reading renders superflu

ous the two provisions in subsection (h)(7) that require findings for the

exclusion of time necessary for “adequate preparation for pretrial

proceedings,” §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), and “effective preparation,”

§3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). See also infra, at 13–14.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 13

Opinion of the Court

continuances.” Post, at 11.

On the dissent’s reading of subsection (h)(1), a court

could extend by weeks or months, without any finding that

the incursion on the Act’s timeliness guarantee is justified,

the entire portion of a criminal proceeding for which the

Act sets a default limit of 70 days. The problem with this

reading is clear: It relies on an interpretation of subsection

(h)(1) that admits of no principled, text-based limit on the

definition of a “proceeding concerning the defendant,” and

thus threatens the Act’s manifest purpose of ensuring

speedy trials by construing the Act’s automatic exclusion

exceptions in a manner that could swallow the 70-day

rule. This approach is not justified, much less compelled,

by the textual ambiguities and legislative history upon

which the dissent relies. Nor is it justified by the pros

pect, however appealing, of reaching a different result in

this case. Hence our conclusion that the text and struc

ture of subsection (h)(1) do not permit automatic exclusion

of the delay at issue in this case.

2

Our conclusion is further supported by subsection

(h)(1)’s context, particularly neighboring subsection (h)(7).

Subsection (h)(7) provides that delays “resulting from a

continuance granted by any judge” may be excluded, but

only if the judge finds that “the ends of justice served by

taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public

and the defendant in a speedy trial” and records those

findings. In setting forth the statutory factors that justify

a continuance under subsection (h)(7), Congress twice

recognized the importance of adequate pretrial prepara

tion time. See §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) (requiring a district court

to consider whether the “unusual” or “complex” nature of a

case makes it “unreasonable to expect adequate prepara

tion for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within

the time limits” (emphasis added)); §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv)

14 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

(requiring a district court to consider in other cases

“[w]hether the failure to grant such a continuance . . .

would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for

the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due dili

gence” (emphasis added)). Our determination that the

delay at issue here is not automatically excludable gives

full effect to subsection (h)(7), and respects its provisions

for excluding certain types of delay only where district

court makes findings justifying the exclusion.13 Cf. post,

at 11–12 (construing subsection (h)(1) in a manner that

could encompass, and govern, delays expressly within

subsection (h)(7)’s purview).

3

Finally, our Speedy Trial Act precedents support our

reading of subsection (h)(1). We recently explained that

the Act serves not only to protect defendants, but also to

vindicate the public interest in the swift administration of

justice. We thus held that a defendant may not opt out of

the Act even if he believes it would be in his interest;

“[a]llowing prospective waivers would seriously undermine

the Act because there are many cases . . . in which the

prosecution, the defense, and the court would all be happy

to opt out of the Act, to the detriment of the public inter

——————

13 Had Congress wished courts to exclude pretrial motion preparation

time automatically, it could have said so. As noted, subsection (h)(7)

twice refers to preparation time to explain the kinds of continuances

that a court may grant in the interests of justice. See

§§3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), (h)(7)(B)(iv). Congress easily could have referred to

preparation time similarly in subsection (h)(1). See, e.g., Speedy Trial

Act Amendments Act of 1979, H. R. 3630, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., §5(c)

(1979) (proposing to exclude under subparagraph (D) all “delay result

ing from the preparation and service of pretrial motions and responses

and from hearings thereon” (emphasis added)). Congress did not do so,

and we are bound to enforce only the language that Congress and the

President enacted.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 15

Opinion of the Court

est.” Zedner v. United States, 547 U. S. 489, 502 (2006).14

Courts of Appeals that have read subsection (h)(1) to

exclude automatically pretrial motion preparation time

have reasoned that their interpretation is necessary to

provide defendants adequate time to build their defense.

See, e.g., United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 F. 2d

902, 913 (per curiam), opinion supplemented on other

grounds on rehearing, 881 F. 2d 866 (CA10 1989) (per

curiam). Yet these same courts have recognized that

reading subsection (h)(1) to exclude all time for preparing

pretrial motions would undermine the guarantee of a

speedy trial, and thus harm the public interest we have

recognized in preserving that guarantee even where one or

both parties to a proceeding would be willing to waive it.

See Zedner, supra, at 502. To avoid a result so inconsis

tent with the statute’s purpose—i.e., “to avoid creating a

big loophole in the statute,” United States v. Tibboel, 753

F. 2d 608, 610 (CA7 1985)—these courts have found it

necessary to craft limitations on the automatic exclusion

for pretrial motion preparation time that their interpreta

tion of subsection (h)(1) otherwise would allow. See, e.g.,

ibid. (stating that pretrial motion preparation time may be

automatically excluded under subsection (h)(1) only when

“the judge has expressly granted a party time for that

purpose” (emphasis added)); Oberoi, 547 F. 3d, at 450

(“This . . . qualification prevents abuse. Without it, either

——————

14 Our interpretation of the Act accords with this and other prece

dents in a way the dissent’s interpretation does not. In Henderson v.

United States, 476 U. S. 321, 322 (1986), for example, we carefully

examined the text of §3161(h)(1)(F) (now codified as subparagraph (D))

to determine whether certain periods of pretrial motion-related delay

were automatically excludable. Such careful parsing would seem

unnecessary were the dissent right that subparagraph (D) does not

conclusively define the maximum period of excludable delay for the

category of pretrial motion-related proceedings and that such delay

may simply be excluded under subsection (h)(1).

16 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

party ‘could delay trial indefinitely merely by working on

pretrial motions right up to the eve of trial’ ”).

The fact that courts reading subsection (h)(1) to exclude

preparation time have imposed extratextual limitations on

excludability to avoid “creating a big loophole in the stat

ute,” Tibboel, supra, at 610, underscores the extent to

which their interpretation—and the dissent’s—strays from

the Act’s text and purpose. As noted, subsection (h)(7)

expressly accounts for the possibility that a district court

would need to delay a trial to give the parties adequate

preparation time. An exclusion under subsection (h)(7) is

not automatic, however, and requires specific findings.

Allowing district courts to exclude automatically such

delays would redesign this statutory framework.

C

We also note that some of the Courts of Appeals that

have interpreted subsection (h)(1) to exclude automatically

pretrial motion preparation time have reasoned that a

contrary reading of that provision would lay “a trap for

trial judges” by forcing them to risk a Speedy Trial Act

violation if they wish to grant a defendant’s request for

additional time to prepare a pretrial motion, United States

v. Wilson, 835 F. 2d 1440, 1444 (CADC 1987); see also

Oberoi, supra, at 450.

We acknowledge that it would be unpalatable to inter

pret the Speedy Trial Act to “trap” district courts for ac

commodating a defendant’s request for additional time to

prepare pretrial motions, particularly in a case like this.

Petitioner instigated all of the pretrial delays except for

the final continuance from February 26 to March 5. And

the record clearly shows that the Magistrate Judge and

the District Court diligently endeavored to accommodate

petitioner’s requests—granting his motion for an exten

sion of time to decide whether to file pretrial motions, his

motion for a continuance, and his motion for a new attor

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 17

Opinion of the Court

ney and for time to allow this new attorney to become

familiar with the case. Fortunately, we can abide by the

limitations Congress imposed on the statutory rights at

issue here without interpreting the Act in a manner that

would trap trial courts.

For the reasons we explained above, neither subpara

graph (D) nor subsection (h)(1) automatically excludes

time granted to prepare pretrial motions. This conclusion

does not lay a “trap for trial judges” because it limits (in a

way the statute requires) only automatic exclusions. In

considering any request for delay, whether the exclusion of

time will be automatic or not, trial judges always have to

devote time to assessing whether the reasons for the delay

are justified, given both the statutory and constitutional

requirement of speedy trials. Placing these reasons in the

record does not add an appreciable burden on these

judges. Neither are district courts forced to choose be

tween rejecting a defendant’s request for time to prepare

pretrial motions and risking dismissal of the indictment if

preparation time delays the trial. Instead, a district court

may exclude preparation time under subsection (h)(7) if it

grants a continuance for that purpose based on recorded

findings “that the ends of justice served by taking such

action outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial.” Subsection (h)(7) provides

“[m]uch of the Act’s flexibility,” Zedner, 547 U. S., at 498,

and gives district courts “discretion—within limits and

subject to specific procedures—to accommodate limited

delays for case-specific needs,” id., at 499. The statutory

scheme thus ensures that district courts may grant neces

sary pretrial motion preparation time without risking

dismissal.

Still, the Government suggests that, in some cases, a

district court may fail to make the findings necessary for

an exclusion under subsection (h)(7), leading to a windfall

gain for a defendant who induces delay beyond the Act’s

18 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

70-day limit. Dismissal, however, need not represent a

windfall. A district court may dismiss the charges without

prejudice, thus allowing the Government to refile charges

or reindict the defendant. 18 U. S. C. §3162(a)(1). In

ruling upon a motion to dismiss under the Act, a district

court should consider, among other factors, the party

responsible for the delay. See ibid. (“In determining

whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the

[district] court shall consider, among others, each of the

following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts

and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal;

and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of

this chapter and on the administration of justice” (empha

sis added)); see also United States v. Taylor, 487 U. S. 326,

343 (1988) (“Seemingly ignored were the brevity of the

delay and the consequential lack of prejudice to respon

dent, as well as respondent’s own illicit contribution to the

delay”).

III

Based on this analysis, we hold that the 28-day period

from September 7 through October 4, which includes the

additional time granted by the District Court for pretrial

motion preparation, is not automatically excludable under

subsection (h)(1). The Court of Appeals did not address

whether any portion of that time might have been other

wise excludable. Nor did the Government assert in its

merits brief that another provision of the Act could sup

port exclusion, presenting the argument that September

25 through October 4 could be excluded separately only in

its brief in opposition to certiorari and during oral argu

ment. We therefore do not consider whether any other

exclusion would apply to all or part of the 28-day period.

Instead, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals

for the Eighth Circuit and remand the case for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 1

GINSBURG, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 08–728

_________________

TAYLOR JAMES BLOATE, PETITIONER v. UNITED

STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

[March 8, 2010]

JUSTICE GINSBURG, concurring.

In its brief in opposition to Bloate’s petition for certio

rari, the Government argued that the indictment against

Bloate need not be dismissed even if, as the Court today

holds, the additional time Bloate gained to prepare pre

trial motions does not qualify for automatic exclusion from

the Speedy Trial Act’s 70-day limit. I join the Court’s

opinion on the understanding that nothing in the opinion

bars the Eighth Circuit from considering, on remand, the

Government’s argument that the indictment, and convic

tions under it, remain effective.

Bloate moved, on September 7, 2006, to extend the

deadline for filing pretrial motions. The Magistrate Judge

granted Bloate’s request that same day, extending the

deadline from September 13 to September 25. Having

gained more time, Bloate decided that pretrial motions

were unnecessary after all. Accordingly, on September 25,

he filed a proposed waiver of his right to file such motions.

On October 4, the Magistrate Judge accepted the waiver

following a hearing at which the judge found the waiver

knowing and voluntary. As urged by the Government,

even if the clock continued to run from September 7,

“it stopped on September 25, when [Bloate] filed a

pleading advising the court that he had decided not to

raise any issues by pretrial motion. . . . Although not

2 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

GINSBURG, J., concurring

labeled a pretrial motion, that pleading required a

hearing . . . and served essentially as a motion for

leave to waive the right to file pretrial motions. . . .

The [Speedy Trial Act] clock thus stopped . . . under

18 U. S. C. A. 3161(h)(1)[(D)] until the matter was

heard by the court on October 4, 2006.” Brief in Op

position 11–12.

By the Government’s measure, excluding the time from

September 25 through October 4 would reduce the number

of days that count for Speedy Trial Act purposes to 65, 5

days short of the Act’s 70-day threshold. See id., at 12.

The Government reiterated this contention at oral

argument. “[E]ven if the time starting on September 7th

[i]s not excluded,” counsel said, Bloate’s September 25

filing “trigger[ed] its own exclusion of time” until the

hearing held by the Magistrate Judge on October 4. Tr. of

Oral Arg. 34. See also id., at 45–48. This argument, the

Government suggested, “should be taken into account on

any remand.” Id., at 34. See also id., at 43–44 (“[I]f the

Court thinks that an incorrect amount of time . . . was . . .

excluded, . . . the appropriate thing to do in that circum

stance would be for the Court to leave that open on re

mand, assuming that it’s . . . preserved.”).

The question presented and the parties’ merits briefs

address only whether time granted to prepare pretrial

motions is automatically excludable under 18 U. S. C. A.

§3161(h)(1) (Supp. 2009). As a court of ultimate review,

we are not positioned to determine, in the first instance,

and without full briefing and argument, whether the time

from September 25 to October 4 should be excluded from

the Speedy Trial Act calculation. But the Eighth Circuit is

not similarly restricted. It may therefore consider, after

full airing, the Government’s argument that Bloate’s

indictment should not be dismissed despite his success in

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010)

3

GINSBURG, J., concurring

this Court.*

——————

* Bloate contends that the Government forfeited this argument by

earlier failing to urge exclusion of this discrete period in the District

Court or the Eighth Circuit. Reply to Brief in Opposition 10–11; Tr. of

Oral Arg. 58. Whether the Government preserved this issue and, if it

did not, whether any exception to the ordinary forfeiture principle

applies, are matters within the Eighth Circuit’s ken.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 1

ALITO, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 08–728

_________________

TAYLOR JAMES BLOATE, PETITIONER v. UNITED

STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

[March 8, 2010]

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins,

dissenting.

The Court’s interpretation of the Speedy Trial Act of

1974 (Speedy Trial Act or Act) is not supported by the text

or the legislative history of the Act. Under the Court’s

interpretation, petitioner may be entitled to dismissal of

the charges against him because his attorney persuaded a

Magistrate Judge to give the defense additional time to

prepare pretrial motions and thus delayed the com

mencement of his trial. The Speedy Trial Act does not

require this strange result.

I

A

The Speedy Trial Act generally requires a federal crimi

nal trial to begin within 70 days after the defendant is

charged or appears in court, but certain pretrial periods

are excluded from the 70-day calculation. See 18

U. S. C. A. §3161 (2000 ed. and Supp. 2009). The provi

sion at issue here, §3161(h)(1) (Supp. 2009), automatically

excludes “[a]ny period of delay resulting from other pro

ceedings concerning the defendant, including but not

limited to” eight specific types of delay that are set out in

subparagraphs (A)–(H). Eight Courts of Appeals have

2 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

ALITO, J., dissenting

held1—and I agree—that a delay resulting from the grant

ing of a defense request for additional time to complete

pretrial motions is a delay “resulting from [a] proceedin[g]

concerning the defendant” and is thus automatically ex

cluded under §3161(h)(1).

B

In considering the question presented here, I begin with

the general language of §3161(h)(1), which, as noted,

automatically excludes any “delay resulting from other

proceedings concerning the defendant.” (For convenience,

I will refer to this portion of the statute as “subsection

(h)(1).”) The delay resulting from the granting of a de

fense request for an extension of time to complete pretrial

motions falls comfortably within the terms of subsection

(h)(1).

First, the granting of such a defense request qualifies as

a “proceeding.” A court proceeding is defined as “[a]n act

or step that is part of a larger action” and “an act done by

the authority or direction of the court.” Black’s Law Dic

tionary 1324 (9th ed. 2009) (internal quotation marks

omitted) (hereinafter Black’s Law). The granting of a

defense request for an extension of time to prepare pre

trial motions constitutes both “[a]n act or step that is part

of [the] larger [criminal case]” and “an act done by the

authority or direction of the court.” Second, delay caused

by the granting of such an extension is obviously “delay

resulting from” the successful extension request.

——————

1 United States v. Oberoi, 547 F. 3d 436, 448–451 (CA2 2008); 534

F. 3d 893, 897–898 (CA8 2008) (case below); United States v. Mejia, 82

F. 3d 1032, 1035–1036 (CA11 1996); United States v. Lewis, 980 F. 2d

555, 564 (CA9 1992); United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 F. 2d

902, 912–915 (per curiam), opinion supplemented on other grounds on

rehearing, 881 F. 2d 866 (CA10 1989) (per curiam); United States v.

Wilson, 835 F. 2d 1440, 1444–1445 (CADC 1987); United States v.

Tibboel, 753 F. 2d 608, 610 (CA7 1985); United States v. Jodoin, 672

F. 2d 232, 237–239 (CA1 1982).

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 3

ALITO, J., dissenting

C

The Court does not contend that the granting of a de

fense request for time to prepare pretrial motions falls

outside the plain meaning of subsection (h)(1), but the

Court holds that §3161(h)(1)(D) (hereinafter subparagraph

(D)) narrows the meaning of subsection (h)(1). Subpara

graph (D) sets out one of the eight categories of delay that

are specifically identified as “delay resulting from [a]

proceedin[g] concerning the defendant,” but as noted, this

list is preceded by the phrase “including but not limited

to.” “When ‘include’ is utilized, it is generally improper to

conclude that entities not specifically enumerated are

excluded.” 2A N. Singer & J. Singer, Sutherland on Stat

utes and Statutory Construction §47.23, p. 417 (7th ed.

2007). See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U. S.

569, 577 (1994); Herb’s Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U. S.

414, 423, n. 9 (1985); Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v.

Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U. S. 95, 100 (1941); Black’s

Law 831 (“The participle including typically indicates a

partial list”). And the inclusion in subsection (h)(1) of the

additional phrase “not limited to” reinforces this point.

See United States v. Tibboel, 753 F. 2d 608, 610 (CA7

1985).

Because subparagraph (D) follows the phrase “including

but not limited to,” the Court has a steep hurdle to clear to

show that this subparagraph narrows the meaning of the

general rule set out in subsection (h)(1). The Court’s

argument is that subparagraph (D) governs not just “delay

resulting from any pretrial motion,” §3161(h)(1)(D), but

also delay resulting from “proceedings involving pretrial

motions,” ante, at 8, and n. 9 (emphasis added), and “all

pretrial motion-related delay,” ante, at 8 (emphasis added).

In the Court’s view, Congress has expressed a judgment

that if a period of “pretrial motion-related delay” does not

fall within the express terms of subparagraph (D), then it

is “excludable only when accompanied by district court

4 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

ALITO, J., dissenting

findings.” Ante, at 9. Thus, since subparagraph (D) does

not provide for the exclusion of delay resulting from the

granting of a defense request for more time to prepare

pretrial motions, the Court holds that such delay is not

excluded from the 70-day calculation. The Court’s analy

sis, however, is not supported by either the text of sub

paragraph (D) or the circumstances that gave rise to its

enactment.

D

The Court’s argument would have some force if it were

clear that the delay involved in the present case is “delay

resulting from [a] pretrial motion.” §3161(h)(1)(D). It

could then be argued that subparagraph (D) reflects a

legislative decision to provide for the automatic exclusion

of delay resulting from a pretrial motion only if that delay

occurs during the period “from the filing of the motion

through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt

disposition of, such motion.” Ibid.2

It is at least doubtful, however, that the delay at issue

in the present case is delay “resulting from [a] pretrial

motion.” Ibid.3 The phrase “resulting from” means “pro

ceed[ing], spring[ing], or aris[ing] as a consequence, effect,

or conclusion.” Webster’s Third New International Dic

tionary 1937 (1971). Thus, delay “resulting from” a pre

trial motion is delay that occurs as a consequence of such a

——————

2 TheCourt hints that the defense’s request for additional time might

itself be a pretrial motion within the meaning of §3161(h)(1)(D).

Neither party relies on this theory. The Court of Appeals found that

“Bloate never filed a pretrial motion.” 534 F. 3d, at 897.

3 This much is clear from the Court’s own language. The Court writes

that “although the period of delay the Government seeks to exclude in

this case results from a proceeding governed by subparagraph (D), that

period precedes the first day upon which Congress specified that such

delay may be automatically excluded.” Ante, at 9–10 (emphasis added).

Subparagraph (D) does not speak of delay that results from a “proceed

ing,” ibid.; subsection (h)(1), however, does. See §3161(h)(1).

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 5

ALITO, J., dissenting

motion. The type of delay involved in the present case,

however, does not occur as a consequence of a pretrial

motion; rather, it occurs as a consequence of the court’s

granting of a defense request for an extension of time.

The particular facts of this case sharply illustrate this

point because petitioner never filed pretrial motions.4

It is telling that the Court elides the statutory phrase

“resulting from” and substitutes a broader phrase of its

own invention. The Court writes that “pretrial motion

related delay” that is not captured by subparagraph (D)’s

text is “excludable only when accompanied by district

court findings.” Ante, at 9. See also ante, at 8 (“Subpara

graph (D) does not subject all pretrial motion-related delay

to automatic exclusion”); ante, at 9 (“[O]nly pretrial mo

tion-related delay ‘from the filing’ of a motion to the hear

ing or disposition point specified in the provision is auto

matically excludable”); ante, at 15, n. 14 (“pretrial motion

related delay”); ibid. (“pretrial motion-related proceed

ings”). But “pretrial motion-related delay” is not necessar

ily delay “resulting from” a pretrial motion.

Even if it is possible to read the statutory phrase “re

sulting from” to mean “related [to],” see ante, at 9, there

are at least two good reasons for rejecting that reading.

First, because subparagraphs (A)–(H) are meant to be

illustrative, those provisions should not be interpreted as

limiting unless the limitation is very clear. Second, the

Court’s interpretation of subparagraph (D) leads to an

anomalous result that Congress is unlikely to have in

tended. Because subparagraph (D) automatically excludes

“delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing

of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or

other prompt disposition of, such motion,” it is clear that

——————

4 But even if petitioner had filed pretrial motions, the delay resulting

from the granting of the extension still would not be delay “resulting

from” the motion.

6 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

ALITO, J., dissenting

subparagraph (D) automatically excludes delay resulting

from the granting of a prosecution request for additional

time to respond to a defendant’s pretrial motions. The

Court has not identified any reason why Congress might

have wanted to provide an automatic exclusion for delay

resulting from the granting of a prosecution request for

additional time to respond to a defendant’s pretrial mo

tions but not for delay resulting from the granting of the

defendant’s request for additional time to prepare those

very motions. Since there is nothing to suggest that Con

gress intended such a strange, asymmetrical result, the

Court’s strained interpretation of subparagraph (D) should

be rejected. Subparagraph (D) should be read to apply

only to delay “resulting from [a] pretrial motion,” and

because the delay involved here does not result from a

pretrial motion, there is no basis for inferring that sub

paragraph (D) was meant to take that delay outside the

scope of the general language of subsection (h)(1).

E

The circumstances surrounding the adoption of the

current version of subparagraph (D) in 1979 point to the

same conclusion. That language was adopted to expand

the reach of the exclusion. As originally enacted, the

relevant provision of the Act excluded only “delay result

ing from hearings on pretrial motions,” 88 Stat. 2078, and

courts had interpreted this language literally to exclude

only time actually devoted to hearings. See, e.g., United

States v. Lewis, 425 F. Supp. 1166, 1171 (Conn. 1977);

United States v. Conroy, No. 77 Cr. 607 (CHT), 1978 U. S.

Dist. LEXIS 19296, *4 (SDNY, Mar. 1, 1978); accord,

United States v. Simms, 508 F. Supp. 1175, 1177–1178

(WD La. 1979). The House Judiciary Committee stated

that the language on which the Court now relies was

added “to avoid an unduly restrictive interpretation of the

exclusion as extending only to the actual time consumed in

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 7

ALITO, J., dissenting

a pretrial hearing.” H. R. Rep. No. 96–390, p. 10 (1979).

Similarly, the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed

frustration with what it described as the courts’ “unneces

sarily inflexible” interpretation of the Act. S. Rep. No. 96–

212, p. 18 (1979) (hereinafter S. Rep.). See also id., at 26.

Congress’ expansion of the exclusion set out in subpara

graph (D) so that it covers, not just the time taken up by

hearings on pretrial motions, but all delay resulting from

pretrial motions does not support the inference that Con

gress wanted the type of delay at issue in this case to

count against the Speedy Trial Act’s 70-day period.

Contending that Congress could have been more explicit

if it “wished courts to exclude pretrial motion preparation

time automatically,” the Court cites as an example a

legislative proposal by the Department of Justice to pro

vide for an express exclusion of preparation time for pre

trial motions. Ante, at 14, n. 13. The Court is correct that

Congress did not choose this option, but the Court’s argu

ment misses the point.

First, it bears emphasizing that the Justice Depart

ment’s proposal did not simply exclude delay caused by a

successful defense request for additional time to prepare

pretrial motions. That is the delay in dispute here. In

stead, the Justice Department’s proposal excluded all

“delay resulting from the preparation and service of pre

trial motions and responses from hearings thereon.” S.

961, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., §5 (1979) (as introduced).

Second, the reasons given in the Senate Judiciary Com

mittee report for rejecting the Justice Department pro

posal do not apply when the delay results from the grant

ing of a defense request such as the one at issue here. The

Senate Committee report noted that, when excluding time

for the preparation of pretrial motions, it will be “quite

difficult to determine a point at which preparation actu

ally begins.” S. Rep., at 34. But when a district court

grants a defendant’s motion for time to prepare pretrial

8 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

ALITO, J., dissenting

motions, that concern is not present. See United States v.

Oberoi, 547 F. 3d 436, 451 (CA2 2008) (noting the impor

tance of the District Court’s expressly stopping the speedy

trial clock to create a point from which to measure prepa

ration time).5 In addition, the Committee expressed the

view that “in routine cases, preparation time should not be

excluded.” S. Rep., at 34. However, cases in which a

district court accedes to a defense request for more than

the usual amount of time for the completion of pretrial

motions are by definition not routine.

Third, there is no reason why Congress should have

supposed that the language that Congress and the Presi

dent enacted did not reach delay resulting from the grant

ing of the defendant’s request for additional time to pre

pare pretrial motions. As explained above, supra, at 2, 4–

6, such delay results from a proceeding concerning

the defendant and is not delay resulting from a pretrial

motion.

In sum, (1) delay resulting from the granting of a de

fense motion for an extension of time to file pretrial mo

tions falls within the general rule, set out in subsection

(h)(1), that automatically excludes delay “resulting from

[a] proceedin[g] concerning the defendant;” (2) the sub

paragraphs that follow, which are preceded by the phrase

“including but not limited to,” are illustrative, not exhaus

tive; and (3) neither the text of subparagraph (D) nor the

circumstances surrounding its adoption clearly reflect an

——————

5 The Court incorrectly states that the Courts of Appeals that have

read subsection (h)(1) to exclude preparation time for pretrial motions

have found it necessary to “impos[e] extratextual limitations on exclud

ability,” namely, that the trial judge must expressly grant an extension

of the time for the completion of pretrial motions. See ante, at 16. This

requirement, however, springs from the language of subsection (h)(1),

for it is the granting of the extension request that constitutes the

“proceedin[g] concerning the defendant” that triggers the exclusion

under subsection (h)(1). See supra, at 2.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 9

ALITO, J., dissenting

intent to narrow the scope of the general rule set out in

subsection (h)(1). For these reasons, I would hold that the

delay in question here is automatically excluded.

II

The Court advances several additional arguments in

support of its analysis, but none is persuasive.

A

Two of these arguments hinge on the Court’s unjustifia

bly broad interpretation of subparagraph (D), i.e., that it

covers all “pretrial motion-related delay.” First, the Court

reasons that under a contrary interpretation, “a court

could extend by weeks or months, without any finding that

the incursion on the Act’s timeliness guarantee is justified,

the entire portion of a criminal proceeding for which the

Act sets a default limit of 70 days.” Ante, at 13. But the

same is true of the Court’s interpretation. Even under an

interpretation that automatically excludes delay “only

from the time a motion is filed through the hearing or

disposition point,” ante, at 9, there appears to be no reason

why a district court may not, in its discretion, extend the

automatically excludable period of time under subpara

graph (D) through any number of means, including: (1)

extending the time to file an opposition brief, see Tr. of

Oral Arg. 4; (2) extending the time to file a reply brief, see

United States v. Latham, No. 82–CR–890, 1983 U. S. Dist.

LEXIS 14219, *1–*3 (ND Ill., Aug. 30, 1983); (3) allowing

pre-hearing supplemental briefing, see United States v.

Faison, No. 06–4332, 2007 U. S. App. LEXIS 23298, *6–*9

(CA4, Oct. 4, 2007); (4) deferring the hearing on a pretrial

motion, see United States v. Riley, 991 F. 2d 120, 124 (CA4

1993); (5) conducting multiple hearings on the motion or

motions, e.g., United States v. Boone, Crim. No. 00–3, 2002

WL 31761364, *20, n. 12 (D NJ, Dec. 6, 2002); or (6) allow

ing the filing of post hearing submissions, see Henderson

10 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

ALITO, J., dissenting

v. United States, 476 U. S. 321, 324 (1986). Indeed, in

Henderson we held that 295 days of delay resulting from

the filing of a pretrial motion were automatically exclud

able, and we noted that “Congress was aware of the

breadth of the exclusion it was enacting.” Id., at 327.6

The Court’s suggestion that its interpretation is necessary

to protect the Act’s “timeliness guarantee,” ante, at 13, is

illusory.

For a similar reason, the Court’s interpretation is not

supported by the rule of construction that “ ‘[a] specific

provision’ . . . ‘controls one[s] of more general application.’ ”

Ante, at 10. This rule applies only when specific and

general statutory provisions conflict. National Cable &

Telecommunications Assn., Inc. v. Gulf Power Co., 534

U. S. 327, 335–336 (2002). Here, there is no conflict be

cause, even if subparagraph (D) governs “delay resulting

from any pretrial motion,” there is no basis for concluding

that subparagraph (D) governs all “pretrial motion-related

delay.”

B

Contrary to the Court’s claim, its decision is not sup

ported by §3161(h)(7)(A), which excludes “delay resulting

from a continuance” provided that the trial court “sets

forth, in the record of the case, . . . its reasons for finding

that the ends of justice served by the granting of such

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and

the defendant in a speedy trial.” One might argue that a

trial judge grants a “continuance” whenever the judge

postpones a trial date, even when the postponement is the

——————

6 That the delay in Henderson was delay “resulting from [a] pretrial

motion,” §3161(h)(1)(D); see 476 U. S., at 322, 330–331, distinguishes

that case from the scenario here, where no pretrial motion has been

filed and the delay in question “results from a proceeding” that, in the

Court’s view, is “governed by subparagraph (D).” Ante, at 9–10. Cf.

ante, at 15, n. 14.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 11

ALITO, J., dissenting

direct result of a proceeding that falls squarely within the

language of subsection (h)(1) or one of the specific illustra

tive subparagraphs that follow. See §3161(h)(7)(A) (“[a]ny

period of delay resulting from a continuance”). But such a

reading would render subsection (h)(1) and subparagraphs

(A)–(H) meaningless if it were true that all continuances

required ends-of-justice findings. The plain terms of

subsection (h)(1) refute this interpretation and show that

Congress intended for some periods of delay that postpone

the trial date to be automatically excludable.

Viewed in their proper context, subsection (h)(1) and its

subparagraphs carve out exceptions to the general rule of

§3161(h)(7)(A) requiring ends-of-justice findings for con

tinuances. See, e.g., United States v. Aviles-Alvarez, 868

F. 2d 1108, 1112 (CA9 1989) (noting that when pretrial

motion delay is automatically excluded, the District Court

“does not have to make findings or consider any factors”).

A period of delay resulting from a continuance requires

ends-of-justice findings only when it does not also fall

within the subset of automatically excludable delay de

fined by subsection (h)(1). When a period of delay result

ing from a continuance does qualify for automatic exclu

sion, a court ordinarily should give effect to the more

specific provisions of subsection (h)(1). See Gozlon-Peretz

v. United States, 498 U. S. 395, 407 (1991) (“A specific

provision controls over one of more general application”).

Cf. ante, at 10.

For the reasons discussed, see supra, at 2, the granting

of a defense request for an extension of time to complete

pretrial motions is a “proceedin[g] concerning the defen

dant” within the meaning of subsection (h)(1). It may also

qualify as a “continuance” within the meaning of

§3161(h)(7)(A) if the delay has the effect of pushing back

the trial date. But a court should resolve the conflict by

applying the more specific provision of subsection (h)(1).

This result is faithful not only to the plain language of the

12 BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

ALITO, J., dissenting

statute, but to its overall structure of providing a class of

exceptions to the general rule that continuances require

ends-of-justice findings. And it also recognizes that when

defense counsel argues that adequate pretrial motions

cannot be completed within the time allotted and is

granted an extension, it will generally go without saying

that the judge has considered whether the ends of justice

will be served by the extension, and requiring the judge to

recite this determination on the record will often be an

empty exercise.

III

The Court does not believe that its interpretation will

have serious adverse consequences because trial judges, by

making the on-the-record findings required under

§3161(h)(7), may exclude delay resulting from the grant

ing of a defense request for an extension to file pretrial

motions. As this case illustrates, however, there will be

cases in which busy district judges and magistrate judges

will fail to make those findings, and indictments will be

dismissed for no good reason. If requiring findings on the

record were cost- and risk-free, Congress would not have

provided for the automatic exclusion of the broad category

of delay encompassed by §3161(h)(1).

The Court notes that, when a Speedy Trial Act violation

occurs because of delay caused by an extension requested

by the defense, a district court may dismiss the indictment

without prejudice. But as we have recognized, even when

a new indictment may be obtained, “substantial delay may

well make reprosecution . . . unlikely.” United States v.

Taylor, 487 U. S. 326, 342 (1988). Dismissal without

prejudice is “not a toothless sanction,” ibid., and it is

particularly inappropriate when brought about by a crimi

nal defendant’s own delay.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 13

ALITO, J., dissenting

IV

For these reasons, I would hold that the delay at issue

in this case is automatically excluded for Speedy Trial Act

purposes, and I would therefore affirm the decision of the

Court of Appeals.