... weighs slightly against the government.” (citations, quotation, and alteration omitted)). Although Mr. Stanley’s argument that “[no] defense misbehavior or improper pleading filings” caused any delay, Aplt. Br. at 12, may be accurate, this argument ignores the fact that numerous defense motions were filed on his behalf and that those motions, by necessity, resulted in delay. He does not dispute the government’s statement that he filed 17 substantive pretrial motions and, at least initially, joined in pretrial motions filed by his code-fendants. Of course, Mr. Stanley was free to file any motions necessary for a vigorous defense, but the resultant delays do not weigh against the government in the speedy trial balancing. See United States v. Dirden, 38 F.3d 1131, 1138 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we note that Mr. Stanley’s refusal
holding delays caused by numerous defense pretrial motions and defendants motion to continue do not weigh against the government holding delays caused by defendants role in necessitating substitution of defense counsel once on the eve of trial are attributed to defendant holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second holding that the government did not waive an affirmative defense not pleaded in the answer because it raised the defense at a pragmatically sufficient time by listing the defense in the joint pretrial order holding that the clock was tolled from the day the lastarraigned defendant appeared before a judicial officer because at that time several defendants already had filed pretrial motions and pretrial motions of some type remained pending for over two years