With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". indictments filed longer than thirty days after an arrest which add charges to those contained in the original indictment do not violate the Speedy Trial Act. See, e.g., United States v. Mosquera, 95 F.3d 1012, 1013 (11th Cir.1996) (finding no Speedy Trial Act violation when superseding indictment adding new charges was filed following a mistrial based on the fact that the initial indictment was filed within the thirty-day period); United States v. Orbino, 981 F.2d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir.1992) (“A superseding indictment [adding charges] issued before the original indictment is dismissed may issue more than thirty days after the arrest. Not all charges must be filed within the first thirty day period.” (citations omitted)); United States v. Castellano, 848 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. McCown, 711 F.2d 1441,

A: holding that the dismissal of an indictment before trial and institution of a superseding indictment does not trigger double jeopardy
B: holding that a subsequent indictment does not restart the thirtyday speedy trial clock but rather tolled it when the original indictment was dismissed the thirtyday period again continued to run it did not begin anew the second indictment was then filed before the thirtyday period expired therefore the filing of the second indictment even though filed after thirty days following defendants arrest did not violate his rights under the speedy trial act
C: holding initial indictment which was subsequently found to be invalid tolled the thirtyday period and superseding indictment alleging different charges based on same fraudulent acts as earlier indictment was therefore timely
D: holding that when initial indictment was filed within the thirtyday period a superseding indictment filed outside the thirtyday window which did not change the original charges did not violate the speedy trial act
C.