when Grant then well knew that she had used at least one other social security number in other bankruptcy petitions which Grant knew she was obligated to disclose.” By including the phrase “which Grant knew she was obligated to disclose,” the Government alleged that Defendant had an obligation to disclose her second social security number. Because Form B-21 requires only the disclosure of social security numbers that the debtor “has,” the obligation language limits the indictment to what Form B-21 requires — disclosure of all social security numbers that the debtor “has.” Nor did the indictment mislead Defendant. By outlining each element of the offense, the indictment notified Defendant of the charges against her. See United States v. Griffin, 800 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Trice, 823 F.2d 80, 89 n.8
holding that the government must prove the defendant knew of the features of the firearm that brought it within the scope of the act holding the government waived its standing argument when it was put on notice the defendant would claim a privacy interest holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the defendant knew before trial the theory of criminality on which the government would proceed holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense