Second, the government contends that the making of a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 should be treated as a continuing offense and, thus, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the time the Form 10-K Report was forwarded by PanWorld to the SEC. III. DISCUSSION A. Application of 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) The government argues that the district court erred in concluding that it was required to expressly charge Dunne under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) with causing Pan-World to make a false statement to the SEC when it submitted the Form 10-K Report. The government then argues that the implicit 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) charge was not barred by the five-year period of limitations. We review the government’s arguments de novo. See United States v. Giles, 213 F.Bd 1247, 1248-49 (10th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). The aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. §
holding questions of law related to class certification are reviewed de novo holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo holding that legal issues presented by rule 12b1 motion are reviewed de novo holding that issues concerning the sufficiency of an indictment are reviewed de novo holding that confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo