Seventh Circuit, in United States v. Burdix-Dana, 149 F.3d 741, 743 (7th Cir.1998) — the leading case in this area and the only circuit opinion on point — reached the opposite conclusion. In Burdix-Dana, the Seventh Circuit held the filing of the information was “sufficient to ‘institute’ the information as that language is used in the statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C. § 3282,” even though the defendant did not waive her right to an indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(b). Id. at 742-43. The government urges this court to follow Burdix-Dana. Relying on “several lower court[ ]” decisions which Ragland admits “considered the issue with a mixed view,” compare United States v. Machado, No. CRIM. A.04-10232-RWZ, 2005 WL 2886213, at *3 (D.Mass. Nov. 3, 2005) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Stewart, 425 F.Supp.2d
recognizing that the holding of santanacastellano continues to be the standard by which we determine whether an alien has been found in the united states for purposes of the applicable fiveyear statute of limitations under 18 usc  3282 holding that the majority view is that employers are not liable for theft committed by employees recognizing burdixdana represents the majority view but rejecting its interpretation of 18 usc  3282 recognizing the majority rule recognizing distinction made by majority