F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir.2008) (“[T]he filing of a superseding indictment does not reset the speedy-atrial clock for offenses charged, or required to be joined with those charged, in the original indictment.”); United States v. Marshall, 935 F.2d 1298, 1302 (D.C.Cir.1991) (“As a general rule, the filing of a superseding indictment does not affect the speedy trial timetable for offenses either charged in the original indictment or required under double jeopardy principles to be joined with such charges.”); United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1258 (7th Cir.1986) (“The superseding indictment does not affect the running of the time on the three charges that were in the original indictment as well as the superseding indictment.”); United States v. Berry, 90 F.3d 148, 151 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Rather than restarting the speedy trial
holding that when first indictment was filed within the thirtyday period there is no speedy trial act violation when a subsequent indictment repeating one charge from the initial indictment and adding other counts is filed outside the thirtyday window holding that even if the calculation commenced on the date of the first indictment the defendants right to a speedy trial was not violated 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 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 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