Opinion ID: 2974181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Variance in the Indictment

Text: Defendant contends that, because the second superseding indictment charged him with possession of “about seventy-five kilograms of . . . cocaine,” and Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Agent Glenn testified at trial that the cocaine – not including its packaging – weighed 71.9 kilograms, the entire count should be dismissed because of the “variance in the indictment.” Typically, this court reviews whether a variance exists de novo. United States v. Searan, 259 F.3d 434, 446 (6th Cir. 2001). However, because defendant did not raise this issue below, we review for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). As defendant concedes, reversal based upon a variance in the indictment is only required when it affects his “substantial rights” or otherwise impacts his ability to defend himself. See United - 11 - No. 05-5257 United States v. Gomez States v. Hart, 70 F.3d 854, 860 (6th Cir. 1995) (“When a Defendant argues a ‘fatal’ or ‘material’ variance, he must demonstrate that the variance prejudiced ‘substantial rights’ and that the variance took the Defendant by surprise or placed him at risk of double jeopardy.”); United States v. Feinman, 930 F.2d 495, 499 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Not every variation between indictment and proof at trial creates reversible error; only those variances that create ‘a substantial likelihood’ that a defendant may have been ‘convicted of an offense other than that charged by the grand jury’ require reversal.”). Moreover, “[t]he defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of a variance and that such variance affected his substantial rights or rose to the level of a constructive amendment of the indictment.” Searan, 259 F.3d at 446. Defendant fails to explain how the slight variance between the quantity of drugs charged and the amount introduced at trial was either “material” or “prejudicial” to his defense. Certainly it would not have “taken him by surprise” thereby affecting his trial strategy. Particularly in light of the fact that we are reviewing for plain error, we conclude that defendant failed to carry his burden with respect to this issue.