Juan Lopez appeals from his conviction and sentence for harboring aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(l)(A)(iii), and conspiracy in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(v)(I). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm. Lopez argues that the district court erred when it redacted his indictment to remove reference to commercial advantage and private financial gain. Even assuming this argument was not waived, Lopez has failed to demonstrate plain error on the part of the district court. Clearly, the court’s redaction did not violate the Fifth Amendment because it did not broaden the charges against Lopez; if anything, it narrowed them. See United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 138-45, 105 S.Ct. 1811, 85 L.Ed.2d 99 (1985) (<HOLDING>). In addition, that the indictment did not
recognizing that an otherwise nonfinal decision becomes final and appealable if the district court adjudicates all remaining claims against all remaining parties before the appellate court acts to dismiss the appeal holding that a court may amend an indictment so long as the scope of the remaining charges is narrower than before 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 this court may reconsider an erroneous ruling as long as the appeal is current 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