the charged substantive crime. The indictment may only be read to also implicitly charge Dunne with either aiding and abetting in or causing someone else to commit the charged crime, i.e., the certification of the false documents. According ly, the government’s argument that the statut es not depend on everyday notions or ordinary meaning.” United States v. Jaynes, 75 F.3d 1493, 1506 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotations omitted). It “is not the same as a scheme or pattern of illegal conduct.” Id. Rather, it “is, in general, [an offense] that involves a prolonged course of conduct,” and “its commission is not complete until the conduct has run its course.” United States v. Rivera-Ventura, 72 F.3d 277, 281 (2d Cir.1995); see also United States v. De La Mata, 266 F.3d 1275, 1288 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 989, 122 S.Ct. 1543,
holding that because a  1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense venue may lie in any district in which the continuing conduct occurred holding that failure to appear is also a continuing offense holding that escape is a continuing offense because the escapee can be held liable for failure to return to custody and given the continuing threat to society posed by an escaped prisoner the nature of the crime involved is such that congress must assuredly have intended that it be treated as a continuing one  quoting toussie 397 us at 115 90 sct 858 holding that a continuing offense is one which is not complete upon the first act but instead continues to be perpetrated over time holding that kidnapping is a continuing offense because the crime by its nature involves unlawful seizure and detention and the perpetration of the offense and harm to the victim continues throughout the duration of the detention