the defendant discovered or could have discovered the basis for the motion, whichever is first. Id. Defendant argues the constraints of § 1867 only apply to challenges brought under the Act, not Sixth Amendment challenges such as his. A. Whether Defendant’s failure to comply with the time limits under the Act bars his Sixth Amendment challenge presents a difficult issue. Section § 1867(e) of the Act provides: The procedures prescribed by this section shall be the exclusive means by which a person accused of a Federal crime ... may challenge any jury on the ground that such jury was not selected in conformity with the provisions of this title. Nothing in this section shall preclu ’s requirements to constitutional challenges. United States v. Green, 742 F.2d 609, 612 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Our cases addressing this question have not
recognizing that the government generally has the right to insist on performance in strict compliance with the contract specifications holding that strict compliance is not required recognizing that strict compliance with  1557 is required holding that a party may gain judicial review without exhausting its administrative remedies where pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile where strict compliance would cause irreparable harm and where the applicable statute is alleged to be void on its face holding that in the absence of strict compliance with  1867 defendants attempt to challenge the jury venire on constitutional grounds is without legal effect and is futile