Although we recognize that to some extent the characteristics of the devices as charged had to be established by the government, we do not believe that the government was constrained to prove the specific hyper-technical details of each. Mr. Johnson was charged with unlawful possession of two firearms, "specifically, destructive devices consisting of plastic pipe, war end caps, flash (firecracker) powder and cannon/hobby fuse, and containing an assortment of nails." We think that the government was required to provide proof substantially consistent with that description. However, we do not think minor differences in the nuances of the description of the devices can support a claim that the government did not prove its case. Cf. United States v. Jungles, 903 F.2d 468, 476 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). We think the description of "flash
recognizing double jeopardy bar is inapplicable where a variance between indictment and proof necessitated prosecution under a new indictment holding that technical difference of partys status as independent contractor instead of an employee as charged in the indictment was a matter of semantics and was not a variance from the indictment holding that where the date of the offense is not an element of the charge  a variance between the indictment date and the proof at trial is not fatal so long as the acts charged were committed within the statute of limitations period and prior to the return date of the indictment holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense holding that an allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and within reasonable time limits proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient