In essence, Defendants are alleging a material variance. We find this argument to be without merit. “[A]n indictment or information ,‘is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against him which he must defend, and, second, enables.him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.’ ” United States v. Allard, 864 F.2d 248, 250 (1st Cir.1989), citing United States v. Serino, 835 F.2d 924, 929 (1st Cir.1987), quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); see also United States v. Fisher, 3 F.3d 456, 462-63 (1st Cir.1993), quoting United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103, 1115 (1st Cir.1992); Beech-Nut Corp., 659 F.Supp. at 1498 (<HOLDING>); United States v. J. Treffiletti & Sons, 496
holding indictment sufficient where it tracked language of ffdca section identified dates of shipments products shipped and recipients of shipments holding that the complaint pled a claim under the unamended  3729a2 in part because it tracked the language of the statute holding that there was no jurisdictional defect when the language of the charging document tracked the statutory language even though the facts proffered at the plea hearing were insufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crime holding that an indictment that is substantially in the language of the code is sufficient inform and substance holding that an indictment under  922g1 was not required to allege a substantial effect on interstate commerce an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient