the court of appeals' disposition of the appeal, rather than the declaration of the mistrial itself, is "the action occasioning the retrial.” United States v. Kington, 875 F.2d 1091, 1108-09 (5th Cir.1989) (discussing situations where disposition of appeal of declaration of mistrial is "the action occasioning the retrial”). However, 9 (11th Cir.1997) (ruling that "[a]n open-ended continuance may be granted to serve the ends of justice”); United States v. Spring, 80 F.3d 1450, 1458 (10th Cir.) (ruling that in "rare cases” it will not be possible to set a specific ending date for a continuance and "an open-ended continuance for a reasonable period is permissible”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 385, 136 L.Ed.2d 302 (1996); United States v. Jones, 56 F.3d 581, 586 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lattany, 982 F.2d 866, 868
holding that under the extraordinary circumstances found by the district court it was not an abuse of discretion to order that defendants be permitted to take depositions of the witnesses in the presence of their attorney and the governments counsel holding in review of a downward departure that an extraordinary reduction must be supported by extraordinary circumstances holding that district courts may grant openended continuances except that continuances for any substantial length of time are extraordinary and must be adequately justified by the circumstances holding that plaintiffs are not required  to have asked for the precise form of relief that the district court may ultimately grant holding that equitable tolling under  2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances