Bentson

MEMORANDUM *

Wayne C. Bentson (“Bentson”) appeals his 2004 conviction in the District of Arizona for conspiracy to defraud the United States. Bentson argues that: 1) the conspiracy count of his indictment was fatally defective; 2) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction; 3) the trial court violated his constitutional rights by placing a time limit on his defense; 4) the trial court erred in failing to give a necessary jury instruction; 5) the district court erred in its jury instruction regarding 18 U.S.C. § 371 ; 6) the district court erroneously admitted evidence without proper foundation; and 7) a variance between the indictment and the proof at trial resulted in undue prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.G. § 1291. We find Bent-son’s allegations to be without merit, and therefore AFFIRM.

1. Sufficiency of the Indictment

When raised for the first time on appeal, the sufficiency of an indictment is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Gondinez-Rabadan, 289 F.3d 630, 632 (9th Cir.2002). An indictment must “fairly inform[] a defendant of the charge against which he must defend.” Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41…