Opinion ID: 655893
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Indictment and Severance

Text: 3 Appellant Barron argues that the conspiracy count is fatally flawed because it failed to specify the time frame within which the alleged conspiracy occurred. The sufficiency of an indictment is reviewed de novo. United States v. Dischner, 960 F.2d 870, 886 (9th Cir.1992). Because Barron raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we do not consider it. United States v. Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir.1991). 4 Appellant Victor Castaneda (Victor) argues that the court erred in denying his motion for severance. We review the denial of a motion to sever for abuse of discretion. United States v. Douglass, 780 F.2d 1472, 1478 (9th Cir.1986). To obtain reversal, a party must demonstrate that joinder was so manifestly prejudicial that it outweighed the dominant concern with judicial economy. United States v. Monks, 774 F.2d 945, 948 (9th Cir.1985) (citations omitted). Victor has not made a showing that a separate trial would have given him a better chance for acquittal or that his substantive rights were violated by a joint trial. Douglass, 780 F.2d at 1478. We affirm the district court's denial of the motion to sever.