Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): States v. Wright, 932 F.2d 868, 876 (10th Cir.1991) (dismissing the defendant’s variance argument “by simply stating that the evidence underlying his conviction for either conspiracy was strong enough that any prejudice arising from the variance was harmless”), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Flowers, 464 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir.2006). In addition to the in-cou conspiracy, any potential spillover effect concerning the drug quantities did not prejudice Herrera in any way. In sum, despite the fact that the government actually proved two separate conspir acies and not the single conspiracy-charged, there is no risk that the jury convicted Herrera for a conspiracy or for transactions in which he did not participate. See United States v. Morse, 785 F.2d 771, 775 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this variance did not prejudice 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiff could not prevail on productsliability action where there was no proof he used defendants product (B) holding that there could be no risk of spillover evidence where there was significant proof that both defendants participated in all the transactions (C) holding that evidence did not establish commercial bribery because there was no proof of inducement (D) holding there was no error in refusing to charge accessory after the fact because there is no exclusionary situation which eliminates one defendant or the other from having participated in the murder as a principal (E) holding that there is no basis in law to submit the issue of plaintiffs negligence to the jury when there was no evidence that plaintiff incited the dog or voluntarily or unreasonably exposed herself to a known risk
Output (English): holding that there is no basis in law to submit the issue of plaintiffs negligence to the jury when there was no evidence that plaintiff incited the dog or voluntarily or unreasonably exposed herself to a known risk