is not, as discussed above, a “dearth of evidence of activity” from 2004 to 2006. Rather, adequate circumstantial evidence was adduced at trial for every year of the charged conspiracy. Moreover, unlike the defendants in Morales, Ortiz was not charged with a RICO conspiracy, so there was no need for the government to prove the existence of a “continuing criminal enterprise.” Proof of the existence of an “enterprise” during the seven years of the defendants’ incarceration was central to the outcome in Morales. Thus, Morales is distinguishable. For these reasons, I conclude that there was no variance, as there is evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdict that a conspiracy existed for each of the years charged in the Indictment. Even if there was a variance, tho (2d Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Butler, 351 F.Supp.2d 121,
holding that an in dictment valid on its face is not subject to challenge on the ground that the grand jury acted on the basis of inadequate or incompetent evidence holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence holding that it may not holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision holding that facially valid indictment may not be challenged on the ground that it is based on inadequate evidence