homing in on the nub of his Motion — whether the Indictment sufficiently alleges that any customers lost actual money or property. To begin, Akinyoyenu contends that there is no plausible legal theory that could support the Indictment’s contention that he participated in “a scheme to defraud ... federal and state regulatory agencies.” Mot. at 4, 6-7 (quoting Indictment, Count Four, ¶2). As the Government-both concedes that its inclusion of agencies as purported victims was in error and represents that it will-not pursue this theory at trial, the Court strikes the words “and federal and state regulatory agencies” in Count Four as irrelevant to this case and as prejudicial in making the scheme seem more grandiose than it was. See United States v. Oakar, 111 F.3d 146, 157 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Defendant next claims that the Indictment
holding that the race of the prosecutor is irrelevant holding that it may not holding surplus language may only be stricken if it is irrelevant and prejudicial holding that evidence was irrelevant when it concerned facts that if true were of no consequence to the defendants trial holding that it is prejudicial to indicate to the jury that the plaintiff has or may have another remedy  