Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges.” Other circuits have uniformly held that § 3161(b)’s thirty-day rule is not violated “[w]hen a defendant is indicted within the thirty-day period and then re-indicted on identical charges based on identical facts after the expiration of the thirty-day period.” United States v. Berry, 90 F.3d 148, 151 (6th Cir.1996); see also United States v. Perez, 845 F.2d 100, 103 (5th Cir.1988) (finding that initial indictment returned by a grand jury whose term had expired tolled the thirty-day period such that a subsequent valid indictment which was “identical in all material respects to the void indictment” was timely); United States v. Mitchell, 723 F.2d 1040, 1044-45 (1st Cir.1983) ; United States v. Rabb, 680 F.2d 294, 297 (3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that additional facts in superseding indictment filed more than thirty days after arrest did not violate sta
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 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
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
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.