18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) because of the complexity of the ease. A district court must satisfy two requirements when it grants an “ends of justice” continuance under § 3161(h)(7): “(1) the continuance must be specifically limited in time; and (2) it must be justified on the record with reference to the facts as of the time the delay is ordered.” United States v. Lloyd, 125 F.3d 1263, 1268 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The court must conduct an appropriate inquiry to determine whether the various parties actually want and need a continuance, how long a delay is actually required, what adjustments can be made with respect to the trial calendars or other plans of counsel, and whether granting the requested continuance would “outweigh the best inte Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Defendant agrees that the case is complex,
holding that an ends of justice continuance is proper when a case is complex and involves multiple codefendants and multiple overt acts occurring in multiple states and in which the complexity outweighs the interests of individual defendants holding that an ends of justice continuance may be appropriate where the case is unusual or complex holding that speedy trial act requires that an ends of justice continuance be specifically limited in time recognizing that other courts have applied rule 8b to cases involving multiple defendants but stating that it seems to us that contrary to the jurisprudence in other circuits when a joinder of offenses charged against the same defendant is challenged the literal meaning of the rule 8 requires application of rule 8a irrespective of whether multiple defendants are involved in the case holding that when there are multiple defendants rule 9b requires that a plaintiff allege facts specifying each defendants contribution to the fraud