Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
days: Any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges. If an individual has been charged with a felony in a district in which no grand jury has been in session during such thirty-day period, the period of time for filing of the indictment shall be extended an additional thirty days. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). 4 . The indictments, though, need not allege identical facts. As Perez demonstrates, minor variations in the facts alleged in the indictments will not prevent an initial indictment from tolling the STA clock. Perez, 217 F.3d at 328; see also United States v. Mitchell, 723 F.2d 1040, 1044-45 (1st Cir.1983) . We express no opinion on the permissible
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that trial court has no power to allow party to amend motion for new trial more than thirty days after trial court signed the final judgment and that denial of amended motion for new trial filed more than thirty days after judgment preserved nothing for appellate review
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 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
D. holding that additional facts in superseding indictment filed more than thirty days after arrest did not violate sta
E. holding that the dismissal of an indictment before trial and institution of a superseding indictment does not trigger double jeopardy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.