if legal or genuine”). Given this understanding of the terms “use” and “utter,” it becomes evident that an individual can utter, or put into circulation, a counterfeit or fraudulently obtained immigration document without himself using or employing the document. This would occur if a person tendered a counterfeit immigration document intended for use by another. Likewise, an individual can use a counterfeit or fraudulently obtained immigration document without himself uttering, or putting into circulation, the document. The two terms thus have distinct meanings within § 1546 without any need to construe the term “use” as involving ongoing action as the Government suggests. Accordingly, we hold that the “explicit language” of § 1546 does not compel the conclusion that usi 9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Unlike other crimes that have been construed
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 holding that although the investigation of the traffic offense that served as the basis for the stop was complete when the officer issued the citation the officers continued detention of the appellant thereafter for a canine search was lawful because during the investigation of the traffic offense the officer had developed a reasonable suspicion that the appellant had committed a drugrelated offense holding that the crime of rape is a lesser included offense of the crime of felony murder in the perpetration of rape and that since the latter crime included all of the elements of the former consecutive sentences were therefore improper holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction