Here is the stated reasoning:

"After obtaining the Superseding Indictment, the United States sent a request to The Bahamas for a waiver of the rule of specialty to permit trial on the Additional Counts. However, the defendant moved to intervene in the extradition process in The Bahamas, delaying the process. Accordingly, the Government consented to the Courts severance of the Additional Counts and proceeded to trial on the seven counts for which the defendant was originally extradited. To date, The Bahamas has not agreed to waive the rule of specialty, and the Government does not have a timeline for when The Bahamas may respond to its request. Nonetheless, as described above, the Government proved at trial the conduct underlying the Additional Counts. Indeed, trial on the Additional Counts would feature much of the same evidence that was presented at the initial trial. And, importantly, a second trial would not affect the United States Sentencing Guidelines range for the defendant, because the Court can already consider all of this conduct as relevant conduct when sentencing him for the counts that he was found guilty of at the initial trial."