Lemusu

MEMORANDUM *

We affirm the convictions of both Herman Lemusu and Alofaga Lemusu, and remand Herman’s case to the district court for the district court to evaluate Herman’s sentence as discussed, infra.

I. Herman Lemusu’s Claims

Neither a variance nor a constructive amendment occurred when the district court failed to read the indictment’s “Overt Acts” section to the jury. The overt acts were not necessary elements of the conspiracy charged in count one and the jury’s copy of the indictment included an accurate list of charged crimes. United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 11 , 115 S.Ct. 382 , 130 L.Ed.2d 225 (1994). As Herman jointly proposed the relevant jury instructions, his argument is also barred by the invited error doctrine. United States v. Baldwin, 987 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1993).

The district judge properly instructed the jury to agree on an object of the conspiracy from among the crimes that were “alleged in the indictment,” including crimes committed by either Alofaga or Herman. The money laundering instruction was easily distinguishable from the distribution instruction, and the jury is presumed to have distinguished them. See Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307…