is to ensure that the district court “carefully considered]” the statutory factors and “clearly articulat[ed] their effect” in the case. Id. at 336, 108 S.Ct. 2413. “[W]hen the statutory factors are properly considered, and supporting factual findings are not clearly in error, the district court’s judgment of how opposing considerations balance should not lightly be disturbed.” Id. at 337, 108 S.Ct. 2413. Here, the district court reviewed the statutory factors in considerable detail, independent of the first judge’s earlier analysis, made factual findings for the second time, and determined that the overall balance weighed in favor of dismissing the indictment without prejudice for the second time. Defendant disagrees with the district court’s balancing of the statuto h Cir. 1981) (<HOLDING>). As to the second and third factors, the
holding that alien smuggling offenses punishable by up to five years imprisonment each were a serious offense for speedy trial act purposes holding that rule 36 may not be used by the district court to fundamentally alter the defendants sentence from three to five years imprisonment in an attempt to conform the sentence to the intention of the parties as reflected in the plea agreement which provided that the prisoner would serve exactly five years holding that crimes of bank fraud punishable by up to five years imprisonment each were a serious offense for speedy trial act purposes holding that a potential prison sentence of up to five years was clearly serious holding that sentences of five years in prison followed by ten years probation were illegal sentences that exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for a thirddegree felony