context: Okeayainneh and Adentran concede we have previously held that the district court is not required to make a contemporaneous record of its ends-of-justice findings.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 183 F.3d 900, 901
citation_a.parenthetical: "Contemporaneity is not required ... and a subsequent articulation suffices."
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Clifford, 664 F.2d 1090, 1095 (8th Cir.1981) (“While a court generally should make the findings required by section 3161(h)(8)(A) at the time it grants the continuance, the Speedy Trial Act does not require the court to make a contemporaneous record.”); see also United States v. Stackhouse, 183 F.3d 900, 901 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (“Contemporaneity is not required ... and a subsequent articulation suffices.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 664 F.2d 1090, 1095
citation_b.parenthetical: "While a court generally should make the findings required by section 3161(h
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Clifford, 664 F.2d 1090, 1095 (8th Cir.1981) (“While a court generally should make the findings required by section 3161(h)(8)(A) at the time it grants the continuance, the Speedy Trial Act does not require the court to make a contemporaneous record.”); see also United States v. Stackhouse, 183 F.3d 900, 901 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (“Contemporaneity is not required ... and a subsequent articulation suffices.”).