Opinion ID: 789574
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Validity of Remaining Counts

Text: 54 Milstein's contention that counts other than Count Four should be dismissed because of the alleged impropriety in the midtrial amendment to Count Four is moot in light of our above discussion. In any event, even had that midtrial amendment been impermissible, it would have provided no basis on which to disturb Milstein's conviction on the remaining counts. [A]bsent a showing of prejudice, the erroneous amendment of one count does not destroy other counts of the indictment nor invalidate the judgment of conviction thereon. United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d at 667 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Government's failure to allege the jurisdictional element in Count Four had no impact on any of the remaining counts, and Milstein has not shown any prejudice.