decision i believe you authored in two thousand and fourteen in that case as a here there was a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment based on in this case we had a grant awarded to mr ruskin here in the amount of one hundred forty nine thousand two hundred eighty dollars that was deposited into a wells fargo workout on a on august thirtieth and then on august nineteenth which was really overlooked very much throughout these proceedings was that he is in the deposit is sixty nine shirl shall feel justified a trial that once that commingling occurred with the deposit of the sixty nine thousand dollars there could not be a way of the students who attended the program that ended on march the six there were two students in attendance on that date and she cleaned the office from the program and so that does play a role what was not been done to me ask a question let's say we agree with you that this was not a continuing a family absence or if we were to agree with you that this is not a continuing offense there would be a statute of limitations issue right yours i tried to put my aids in this morning with new batteries and i've only got one we're really struggling well i'll do my best but let's say that we were to agree with you that this is not a continuing offense right not a continuing offense that i don't think it makes any difference whether it's continuing  account no the indictment was filed on march sixth two thousand and thirteen so the cutoff date for the end of the satchel limitations would have been march the fifth of two commingled with the grant funds but again with the closing of the program on march sixth with the last student attending and that's in one of the exhibits and  everything had been acquired purchased whether authorized or unauthorized the computers had been purchased which did exist the snacks a been purchased there were other expenditures teachers had the teachers who tutored the students had been paid i don't want to get into the argument of which funds were disallowed or not allowed on  in her final summary on the last page or for a very detailed and thorough accounting goes into what she considered being as generous as she could as to what funds were could be and should be allocated to the program a strong market saw but the point i'm trying to make is that by the fourth of march prior to the ambit of the statute of limitations there was one hundred eighty three thousand dollars and the second point is that by march sixth there was no reason to spend any more money on this program and everything else that you see i mean what happened was that nobody really took hardly  all i can add is that as of march sixth there was no monies to go to the program there was no program and if i i can't and i won't piecemeal through or look at each expenditure that this just feels detailed in the first twelve thirteen pages of her sixty one page report but looking at those and understanding that business that mr risky has mother had passed in california but was turned buried in mount holly arkansas just a few minutes or just a few miles from  g where the program took place so there if you look at the record it's difficult to see how it is that the money money or the ground know and the hearing held on the statue of limitations the sixty nine thousand dollars of personal funds was never considered never factor so and that was unfortunate and basically that's the sum of my argument there are many arguments positive in this case i'm not going to waste this court's time i'm going forward with what i think is a reasonable argument that the statute of limitations argument needs to be reviewed do you know what this court and i think my time is about it like number one twenty two own august the thirtieth two thousand and seven subsequently own september the ninth mr askia drew out over forty five show field's accounting of this to entire thing is mr irwin said there are from three to twelve the number of transactions there's over five hundred transactions that are occurring with this and the number of deposits if you start looking down at those very good there were nine in september that really qualified because the program didn't actually start until october the ninth of two thousand and seven now it's he said it was october the nineteen is when this sixty nine thousand dollars change from the strong public school from determine exactly what a big change from the the program that we're concerned with the twenty first century program and the the prior funds and at that point we have the commingling as she stated at that point what she did was go through and wise if each transaction and determine what could be done based on the budget that was there mr webb can we talk a little bit about the continuing offense yes six six six is a continuing offense right we've not decided that question right that's correct and the district court look to six forty one a different section that's correct i'm getting there are you familiar with the seventh circuit case of i am your honor tell me what's wrong with the analysis the seventh circuit did and yasha your honor i think that they situation with those things that occurred that thing of listen he was taken there are several these cases i'm sorry i can't remember but there was a pattern that was taken at that point in time they determined that was not a continuing of the it's you know the but we also look at the other circuits that have made not on six six six but have made a determination with the can i continuing course of conduct and the four circuit i mean the supreme court i think it's to see says that you know it has to either be congress saying it or it has to be awfully clear i'm not sure what makes it awfully clear i have to say the seven circuit analysis look pretty reasonable to me understand you your honor i think that you know one thing justice white said in the scene that one of the  conduct within the political statute of limitations period such that we don't need to reach the issue of whether it's a continuing offense yes in fact as i said ok that's that's the there is a fuse there is sufficient  was within the limitations period but the case was tried using all of higher period yes so where does that leave us if we if we were to to agree with the seventh circuit and find that it's not a continuing offense yet there was sufficient expenditures or embezzlement within the statute where does that leave us have to go back or is there some case it says we can affirm that your honor you know the look and i couldn't find anything so i could  there well you know i couldn't either that specifically said that but you know yes or sunni which was out of the d c circuit yes or sent it back right because there was no evidence with regard to something that had they did not have a trial i think this was in it was a free trial decision we have a trial where we see what was done mrs sheffield's testimony in her analysis show that there was actually there were seventy three transactions that occurred after the the date of march the six and they made the dollar requirements of the excuse me sixteen thousand little over sixteen thousand dollars for those seventy three transactions as i stated in my brief just pointing out the what occurred with in march that when they were looking at this very issue before we after the hearing that we had in november determined that it was continuing it you know there would be enough  after that date that was within the statute of limitations and i believe his was a little over fifty five hundred dollars which the court after reviewing the record at the district court affirmed that citing the same thing but there was actually when i went back in preparing for this is over sixteen thousand dollars that was expended by mr speed after that more six of two thousand a day and that this is a court have any other questions with regard to continuing if the answer you know there one thing i have in doing this i noticed that a number of the cases that just saw were some say continuing opinion some cite a continuing course of conduct in i think that when it's a continuing course of conduct in it's a long term that such as we have been in this case which it started on the first day he withdrew in continued even into well into april we see that there's a never quit a sad situation that the students of the strong school district did not receive any better after school programs well yasser sad that if there was five thousand before the statue in the patients ran your barber the statute regardless of how much was was expended after the statute within the statutory period and  case yes or did to determine one thing they said it was complete at the time of that first offense gonzales which was with the eighth circuit has said that it's at the end of the course of conduct in course that i that don't relate specifically to six forty one or sixty six sixty six that say that it's when the course of conduct the unions let me ask you this with respect to that which clearly occurred within the statute of limitations can we really tell whether the jury found that those transactions reached the you know the particular transactions reached the total or given the way it was presented are we do we know whether the jury found ones that were outside the statute of limitations your honor you know it's hard to know what the jury there was no requests for  what the judge i worked for many years ago used to say you never know who a woman to marry what when i'm your chick or what a jury would do in the you know that's kind of it's a kind of think of that in this respect it's hard to know without asses in my closing argument i did point out the five thousand dollars that the over five thousand dollars did occur after that day but you know emission fields testimony that she but it's the on those dates it specifically shows where how much was expanded after those dates which they looked through and had the presence and she did talk about the sick or have any other the additional five thousand within the statute of limitations period is that personal force drawn out of a sixty nine thousand but he had that was the last day that students attended and if you look at the actual expenditures as outlined by  to personal funds but again i remind the court that on march sixth everything was over as i looked through michele field expenditures nothing strikes me as grant related to all and this was not argued below but just going through and looking at the actual expenditures the casket or do expenditure short tas reason everything had that was had been purchased or would be purchased for the program had already been done whether authorized or unauthorized we're talking about more than the ground for and certainly including portion or all of the sixty nine thousand and there was fourteen thousand dollars left in the account at the end of april on whether six six x eighteen u s c six six six is continuing or not continuing most of the courts have analogized from six forty one to say yes that's continuing what this court did below