Was there error in the U.S. Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial and Speedy Trial Act assessment of this case?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The petitioner spent 57 months in pretrial detention due to an erroneous Government applied career offender enhancement designation until trial; the person actually alleged in trial to have possessed the drugs in the petitioner’s guilty verdict in count two died after the petitioner’s speedy trial requests; 69 days were ; taken as “complex” to rule on the final remaining suppression motion that was previously denied under the “good faith” doctrine; 51 days were excluded as “automatic” motion practice for unrelated Government continuances when there were no motions pending and all of these timeframes were credited to the petitioner for speedy trial purposes. (1) Was there error in the U.S. Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial and Speedy Trial Act assessment of this case due to an unverified prior conviction, structural error and misapplication of Speedy Trial laws and precedents that expands the scope of the STA ? The african american petitioner only had one cooperating witness against _him in trial of caucasian decent, and her recorded false statement to The NYS Troopers requested by the petitioner was destroyed before trial; and while similarly situated as the petitioner, this witness engaged in two more separate distribution crimes of drugs and firearms on each offense after the petitioner’s case, named in a W.D.N.Y. complaint and yet not charged, and was not cooperating with authorities on either of the later cases. Prejudicial evidence was admitted and Swinton’s sentencing yielded a different outcome than precedents of other defendants as well. (2) | Was this selective prosecution and was the petitioner denied due process of law in trial and sentencing ?