United States v. Nevarez, 55 F.4th 1261

In April 2019 police found Felipe Nevarez with ~26 grams methamphetamine and $16,300; he was indicted for possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841.
Case experienced multiple delays from motions, counsel changes, plea negotiations, and COVID-related continuances; trial occurred in April 2021.
At trial Nevarez conceded possession but contested intent to distribute; a jury convicted him and the district court sentenced him to 120 months' imprisonment.
On appeal Nevarez argued (1) the indictment should be dismissed for Speedy Trial Act violations because the court excluded COVID-related delay time, and (2) he was entitled to a two-level USSG § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility, which the district court denied.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the Speedy Trial waiver question de novo and the continuance/end-of-justice rulings for abuse of discretion; it reviewed the § 3E1.1 denial for clear error with deference to the sentencing judge.
The panel affirmed: Nevarez waived the Speedy Trial Act claim by making a premature objection, and the district court did not clearly err in denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether indictment must be dismissed for Speedy Trial Act violation	Gov: defendant waived because he never filed a proper dismissal motion	Nevarez: counsel’s on-the-record February 17, 2021 statement preserved the claim under Arnold	Waived — objection was premature (filed before an actual violation could occur), so §3162(a)(2) protection lost
Whether defendant is entitled to a two-level USSG §3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility	Gov: sentencing judge properly denied reduction; defendant disputed an essential element at trial	Nevarez: conceded possession and only contested intent to distribute, so should receive reduction as a "rare situation"	Denied affirmed — factual determination not clearly erroneous; sentencing judge entitled to deference

United States v. Arnold, 113 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 1997) (oral on‑record Speedy Trial objection may suffice when court treats it as a motion)
United States v. Sherer, 770 F.3d 407 (6th Cir. 2014) (Speedy Trial dismissal motion must address an existing violation; premature motions ineffective)
United States v. Gauvin, 173 F.3d 798 (10th Cir. 1999) (acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction may apply in rare cases despite trial; defer to sentencing judge)
United States v. Collins, 511 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2008) (denial of §3E1.1 where admissions were strategic is permissible)
United States v. Alvarez, 731 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2013) (acceptance‑of‑responsibility is a factual determination; conviction at trial generally weighs against the reduction)
United States v. Watson, 766 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for ends‑of‑justice continuances under the Speedy Trial Act)
United States v. Lugo, 170 F.3d 996 (10th Cir. 1999) (Speedy Trial Act implements Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial)