Opinion ID: 783051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Government Run-Around

Text: 50 The District Court's third stated reason for distinguishing Oliver — the cases at bar involve[] evidence of a run-around not present in Oliver  — is plausible on its face: [h]ere, it was only after the indictment was dismissed with prejudice that the Government advanced its argument, premised on its disingenuous reading of the affidavit of probable cause, that the prosecution of the importation offense is permissible. 200 F.Supp.2d at 492. Nonetheless, we view the record differently. First, the Government's reading of the affidavit is not, we discern, disingenuous. As explained above, we believe it is correct. Second, while the Government should have offered its arguments based on Oliver before the indictment was dismissed, its failure to do so does not mean that Oliver is distinguishable or that its construction of the Speedy Trial Act may be disregarded.