Opinion ID: 741894
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Variance between evidence and indictment

Text: 10 The indictment alleged that Nash overstated his income on the tax returns. Nash argues that because the government only proved discrepancies in total income, adjusted gross income, and taxable income, the evidence impermissibly amended the indictment. The term income, however, at least when used in the context of an indictment alleging the use of a false income tax return, encompasses the more specific terms total income, adjusted gross income, and taxable income. As a result, the crime proven at trial did not differ significantly from the one charged. At most, then, the proof at trial constituted a variance from the indictment, rather than an amendment to it. See United States v. Momeni, 991 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir.1993). Reversal on this ground is not warranted.