plain error. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-68, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1548-49, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); United States v. Meester, 762 F.2d 867, 879-80 (11th Cir.1985). An appeal attacking the sufficiency of evidence is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. The test is whether — with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in the government’s favor — a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Miles, 290 F.3d 1341, 1355 (11th Cir.2002). An appeal relying on the statute of limitations is a challenge alleging defects in the indictment. Because this challenge is being raised for the first time in this appeal, it is waived. United States v. Ramirez, 324 F.3d 1225, 1227-28 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). III. DISCUSSION A The absence of an
holding that the 1999 version of the sorp like the 1997 version is nonpunitive in both intent and effect holding that a statute of limitations defense first raised in a motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiffs evidence was untimely holding that suppression issue not raised to the district court was waived under rule 12 holding that the statute of limitations in a criminal case is a nonjurisdictional affirmative defense that is waived if not raised in the trial court holding that a statute of limitations defense raised for the first time during trial was waived construing a previous version of federal rule of criminal procedure 12 that was not substantively different from the current version