An indictment must provide “a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). Here, the government’s indictment contained numerous factual allegations about the Morales Organization’s conspiracy and Jones’s involvement, meeting the 7(c)(1) standard and making a bill of particulars unnecessary. See Urban, 404 F.3d at 772. Moreover, Jones suffered no prejudice. Early on in the trial, namely on January 14, 2008, the government elicited testimony from a witness about drug markets run by Jones. The trial continued through March. Accordingly, Jones had considerable time to investigate the locations identified by the witness and to prepare his defense. Cf. United States v. Rosa, 891 F.2d 1063, 1067 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). IV. Jones contends the court erred in
holding denial of a petition to vacate a termination order was reversible error holding the denial of a bill of particulars was not reversible error because it failed to cause the defendant any prejudice holding that if these preservation requirements are met any error in the denial of a challenge for cause is reversible error holding the denial of a proper question is always reversible error holding that the defendant failed to show any prejudice resulting from bench conferences not being transcribed and therefore there was no reversible error