Does a pre-amendment proof of an agreement among Mustafa Mustafa and others to provide Abbasi as material support for terrorism give rise to a presumption that a criminal conspiracy existed after the amendment?

^4. The government does not argue that pre-amendment proof of an agreement among Mustafa and others to provide Abbasi as material support for terrorism gives rise to a presumption that a criminal conspiracy existed after amendment. We have applied a presumption of continuity to conspiracies challenged on statute of limitations grounds. See, e.g., United States v. Spero, 331 F.3d 57, 61-62 (2d Cir. 2003). There, however, the law made the charged agreement a crime both before and after the relevant limitations date; the only question was the timeliness of the charge. By contrast, the charged agreement to provide Abbasi as support for terrorism was not a crimeat least not a 2339A crimebefore October 26, 2001. Thus, there was no pre-amendment crime to which a post-amendment presumption of continuity would attach. We do not pursue the point further, however, because the government does not press it here.