Hunt

facts not alleged in the indictment. Hunt also claims there was insufficient evidence

to convict him of possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute because the

government did not submit a chemical analysis of the controlled substance. We

review unobjected-to claims for plain error, United States v. Flores, 802 F.3d 1028,

1034 (9th Cir. 2015), and the denial of a motion for acquittal de novo, United States

v. Niebla-Torres, 847 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.

Hunt did not object to the sufficiency of the indictment prior to trial, and thus

his claim is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Leos-Maldonado, 302 F.3d

1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002). The indictment adequately charged the necessary

elements of involuntary manslaughter in Indian Country and contained sufficient

facts to adequately notify Hunt of the basis of the crime with which he was

charged. See United States v. Lo, 231 F.3d 471, 481‒82 (9th Cir. 2000).

Hunt contends the prosecutor impermissibly argued that Hunt “brought” the

fentanyl to the trailer whereas the indictment alleged only that Hunt “allowed” S.R.

to be in the trailer with the fentanyl. Hunt failed to object to the closing…