or if they otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public relations of the judicial proceeding.” United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 892, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1935). Several circuits, including this one, recognize that due process constrains the application of Pinkerton where the relationship between the defendant and the substantive offense is slight. Johnson, 886 F.2d at 1123; United States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d 102, 112 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Moreno, 588 F.2d 490, 493 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 936, 99 S.Ct. 2061, 60 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 850-51 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 905, 106 S.Ct. 274, 88 L.Ed.2d 235 (1985). See also United States v. Christian, 942 F.2d 363, 367 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 905, 116
recognizing such limitations in dicta holding that when our circuits law is unsettled and other federal circuits have reached divergent conclusions the claimed error could not be clear or obvious under the second prong of the plain error test recognizing the ninth circuits aberrant behavior spectrum recognizing limitations existence in other circuits holding that a mistake by a partys counsel in interpreting a statute of limitations does not present the extraordinary circumstance beyond the partys control where equity should step in to give the party the benefit of his erroneous understanding and noting a majority of other circuits agree citing cases from the second third fifth seventh eighth ninth eleventh and federal circuits