him where one count of the indictment alleged that he “intentionally misapplied property valued at $5,000 or more,” but did not describe the property at issue or how it was misapplied. The court concluded this omission did not render the indictment insufficient because, reading the indictment as a whole, “it is clear that the property described in Count 7 is the cash and the laptop, the misapplication of which are described in detail in the previous counts.” Id. The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have similarly looked to factual allegations in other counts in considering whether an indictment provided sufficient notice. See United States v. Normandeau, 800 F.2d 953, 958 (9th Cir.1986) overruled in part on other grounds as stated in United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Staggs, 881 F.2d 1527, 1531
holding that although the indictment did not track the exact language of the statute the indictment when read as a whole sufficiently stated facts which support every element of the crime charged and apprised defendant of the specific charge against him holding that indictment sufficiently informed defendant of the charge against him so as to enable him to prepare a defense and thus there is no claim that he was surprised at trial holding that due process requirements may be satisfied if a defendant receives actual notice of the charges against him even if the indictment or information is deficient concluding that defective indictment did not violate defendants sixth amendment right because defendant was made fully aware of charges and potential punishment during guilty plea proceedings holding that reading the indictment as a whole we have no doubt that the defendant was fully aware of the charges against him holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted