defendant who is convicted of a charge not included in the indictment. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 219, 80 S.Ct. 270, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960) (“Here, ... we cannot know whether the grand jury would have included in its indictment [the additional] charge.... This was fatal error.”). But there are significant differences between criminal and civil proceedings, even here, where the deprivation of property is great. We do not hold that an error in a civil context can never be structural, but we do hold that the errors here — failure to mitigate the use of classified information and failure to provide sufficiently detailed notice — do not undermine the proceedings so fundamentally that we cannot ask whether the error was harmless. See KindHearts II, 710 F.Supp.2d at 654 (<HOLDING>). Turning to the harmless-error analysis, we
holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment holding to that effect with respect to rule 64 holding the same with respect to an apartment holding that at least with respect to the constitutionally inadequate notice in that case the errors were not structural holding that under privacy act federal government waived its sovereign immunity with respect to actual damages but not with respect to damages for mental or emotional distress