United States v. Myers, 666 F.3d 402

Myers was arrested February 4, 2009, on a sealed complaint charging heroin peddling.
A sealed grand jury indictment followed June 17, 2009; Myers was arraigned September 22, 2009.
The district court dismissed the charges without prejudice for Speedy Trial Act violations (exceeding 30-day indictment and 70-day trial clocks).
Three months later, a new indictment charged Myers with the same offenses based on the same conduct.
The district court again dismissed the new charges, holding the speedy-trial clocks ran from the original arrest/indictment; the government appeals to the Sixth Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 30-day indictment clock restarts after a new indictment following a dismissal without prejudice	Myers argues clocks do not reset; they run from original arrest/indictment.	Government contends clocks restart anew for the new indictment.	Yes, clocks restart with the new indictment.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing without prejudice on speedy-trial grounds	Discretionary dismissal without prejudice was improper given the delays.	Discretionary dismissal without prejudice is appropriate where delays occur and no prejudice shown.	No abuse; dismissal without prejudice was reasonable.

United States v. Krynicki, 689 F.2d 289 (1st Cir. 1982) (fresh 30-day clock after new arrest/indictment for same conduct)
United States v. Giambrone, 920 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1990) (clock restarts on new indictment based on same conduct)
United States v. Rabb, 680 F.2d 294 (3d Cir. 1982) (new indictment resets speedy-trial clocks)
United States v. Thomas, 705 F.2d 709 (4th Cir. 1983) (new indictment starts new clocks for same conduct)
United States v. Perez, 845 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1988) (issuance of new indictment resets clocks; tolling distinctions noted)
United States v. Samples, 713 F.2d 298 (7th Cir. 1983) (clock restart on new indictment based on same conduct)
United States v. Abernathy, 688 F.2d 576 (8th Cir. 1982) (support for fresh clocks on new indictments)
United States v. Barraza-Lopez, 659 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizes restart of clocks on subsequent indictments)
United States v. Abdush-Shakur, 465 F.3d 458 (10th Cir. 2006) (acknowledges restart of speedy-trial deadlines on new indictment)
United States v. Brown, 183 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 1999) (restarts clocks upon new indictment for same conduct)
United States v. Walker, 545 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (supports fresh deadlines on new indictment)
United States v. Rojas-Contreras, 474 U.S. 231 (1985) (Supreme Court: reindicted defendant; both clocks run anew)