under the non-limiting language of § 3161(h)(1). This argument was directly foreclosed by the Court in Bloate. See Bloate, 130 S.Ct. at 1352 (“The Government contends that the time the 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).” (emphasis added)). 6 . We are not required to address the five days attributable to discovery, but we have signif 18-19 (8th Cir.1997) (same); United States v. Montoya, 827 F.2d 143, 150 (7th Cir. 1987) (same); United States v. Bowers, 834 F.2d 607, 610 (6th Cir. 1987) (same), with United States v. Alvarez-Perez, 629 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lucky, 569 F.3d 101, 107 (2d
holding that plea negotiations do not trigger automatic exclusion pursuant to 18 usc  3161h1 holding that promises made in a plea agreement could violate 18 usc  201c holding that driving while intoxicated is not a violent felony pursuant to 18 usc  924e2b holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001 holding that 18 usc  3625 does not preclude claims that the bop acted contrary to established federal law violated the constitution or exceeded its statutory authority when it acted pursuant to 18 usc  3621