With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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. §

A: holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo
B: holding that legal issues presented by rule 12b1 motion are reviewed de novo
C: holding questions of law related to class certification are reviewed de novo
D: holding that issues concerning the sufficiency of an indictment are reviewed de novo
D.