our Engle decision. In addition, regardless of what transpired before trial, the United States presented evidence during trial tending to establish that Treacy used KG.’s social security number in 2010 and 2011, well within the limitations period. As the district court stated while summarizing the trial evidence, “Treacy’s argument that he only used KG.’s identifying information during the pre-interview process at the direction of the claims representative is inaccurate.” J.A, 951. Therefore, to the extent that factual matters beyond the allegations of the Indictment bear on the issue, those facts refute Treacy’s assertion that the prosecution is untimely, and this provides another basis to affirm his convictions. See generally United States v. Han, 74 F.3d 537, 539 (4th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). Ill Based on the foregoing, we affirm
holding that we will not review under any standard the pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment after a full trial and final judgment on the merits holding we will not review a pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment after a full trial and judgment on the merits holding that we will not review the pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment after a full trial and judgment on the merits recognizing that we can consider trial evidence in reviewing the denial of a pretrial suppression motion holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress