involved a single scheme. IV. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that defendant’s conviction must be REVERSED, and we REMAND this matter to the district court with instructions to dismiss the Indictment. 1 . The government relies on the indictment in United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184 (6th Cir.1992) as support for its contention that there is no one-year time limit. In Sanderson, the indictment covered acts from October 1985 through December 1986; however, the time issue was not raised on appeal. Thus, Sanderson is not authority that supports the government's position. See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 119 & n. 29, 104 S.Ct. 900, 918 & n. 29, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Appeal of Federal Land Bank of St. Louis (In re Stegall), 865 F.2d 140, 142 (7th Cir.1989)(<HOLDING>). 2 . Defendant also challenges the sufficiency
holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding that a matter of law that is assumed but not discussed is not authoritative holding that the determination of whether a counterclaim is compulsory is made as a matter of law holding that it is not holding that the relevant question is not whether risk is involved or assumed but rather whether that or something else to which it is related in the particular plan is its principal object and purpose