Whether a defendant can make a knowing and voluntary decision under a conditional plea agreement when, believing he is preserving his Motion to Dismiss regarding the statute of limitations, the Federal Appeals Court limits its review and frames the District Court's decision in a manner that functionally converts it to a non-dispositive one?

QUESTION PRESENTED David Odom was charged with a fraud scheme arising out of an attempt to obtain a bridge loan under false pretenses. The stated objective of the conspiracy was to induce a bridge lender to approve a loan and disburse the proceeds. There is a five-year statute of limitations for the crime charged. 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). Odom was not charged in the original indictment but was instead added to a superseding indictment. Since the superseding indictment was not filed until June 15, 2016, and the original loan disbursement was May 10, 2011, the factual allegations contained in original indictment were not sufficient to meet the statute of limitations requirements. As a result, the government added two post-disbursement allegations to the superseding indictment in an attempt to “save” it from the limitations issue. The question presented is: 1. Whether a defendant can make a knowing and voluntary decision under a conditional plea agreement when, believing he is preserving his Motion to Dismiss regarding the statute of limitations, the Federal Appeals Court limits its review and frames the District Court’s decision in a manner that functionally convert is to a non-dispositive one? i