discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Martinez Once the government “has presented sufficient evidence to show a conspiracy that has continuing purposes or goals” and that has continued into the limitations period, “the burden is on the defendant to prove ... that he took affirmative steps to withdraw.” Eppolito, 543 F.3d at 49 ; see also United States v. Spero, 331 F.3d 57, 60-61 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 819 , 124 S.Ct. 100 , 157 L.Ed.2d 36 (2003).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Eppolito As conspiratorial conduct constitutes a continuing crime, a conspiracy offense “is not complete until the purposes of the conspiracy have been accomplished or abandoned,” United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822, 838 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 982 , 110 S.Ct. 515 , 107 L.Ed.2d 516 (1989); see, e.g., United States v. Spero, 331 F.3d 57, 61 (2d Cir.) (“Spero ”), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 819 , 124 S.Ct. 100 , 157 L.Ed.2d 36 (2003). “[T]he crucial question in determining whether the statute of limitations has run is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement....” Grun ewald v. Unite…