testimony to the other evidence in the case.... Look at how their testimony stacks up with the phone records, look at how it stacks up to the defendants’ own words, look at how it stacks up to the experiences of the other cooperating witnesses and the testimony of law enforcement officers who conducted the surveillance and made the arrests in this case, and use your common sense. 5. The Speedy Trial Act Washington contends that his right to a speedy trial was violated under the “ruse exception” to the Speedy Trial Act because he was not indicted within 30 days of his arrest on state charges. Washington, however, failed to move for dismissal of the indictment before trial and thus waived his Speedy Trial Act claim. See United States v. Spagnuolo, 469 F.3d 39, 44^46 (1st Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). B. Jones 1. Evidence Seized from Jones’s
recognizing that contractual jury waiver provision that was conspicuous  because it was in bolded font and in all capital letters  met burden of party seeking to enforce provision to make prima facie showing that waiver was knowing and voluntary holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them holding that waiver provision in  3162a2 applies to  3161b holding that defendan s appeid he denial of his motion to dismiss was ithin scope of his appeal waiver because the plea cements waiver provision did not reserve this issue as an exceptionto the waiver holding that the waiver in two previous contracts was insufficient to support waiver of the contract at issue in that appeal