United States v. Rice, 4:12-cr-00818-PJH

Rice, previously convicted in CR 01-40123 CW for six counts of unarmed bank robbery and one count of attempted bank robbery, was on supervised release when arrested for a bank robbery by local authorities on Sept. 19, 2012.
A federal arrest warrant for violation of supervised release issued Sept. 21, 2012; the present indictment for bank robbery was filed Nov. 15, 2012.
Rice’s initial appearance on the bank robbery indictment occurred on Nov. 28, 2012.
Rice moved to dismiss the indictment under Rule 12 on grounds including untimely filing and delay between arrest and initial appearance (68 days), raising Sixth Amendment, Speedy Trial Act, Rule 48(b), and release condition issues.
The court denied the motions to dismiss after a hearing, and Rice filed a motion for reconsideration arguing Contreras (9th Cir. 1995) distinguishes his case.
The reconsideration motion argues the government’s cited authority should be distinguished from his case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Speedy Trial Act clock was triggered by the supervised release arrest	Rice argues the arrest for supervised release violation was ‘in connection with’ the indictment	Rice contends Contreras controls, requiring timing beyond same underlying conduct	No; no triggering by the supervised release arrest under Contreras
Whether Contreras distinguishes this case from the cited authorities	Rice asserts Contreras supports dismissal due to delayed indictment	Court finds Contreras not applicable to create a delay-based dismissal	Contreras does not require dismissal here
Whether the government acted to delay investigation (ruse)	Arrest and timing were a ruse to obtain an indictment	Record shows no ruse; evidence linked to bank robbery pursuit and arrest	No ruse; timing not improper

United States v. Contreras, 63 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 1995) (rejected same-conduct standard for triggering the Speedy Trial Act; require something more for ‘in connection with’)
United States v. Hoslett, 998 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1993) (explained that something more than same conduct may connect an arrest to an indictment)