McIntosh with using a brand of gun that does not exist.” Id. at 1457. The Eighth Circuit held that the erroneous description of the gun was surplusage. Id. It stated that “[a] court may ignore independent and unnecessary allegations in an indictment. Allegations in the indictment that are not necessary to establish a violation of a statute are surplusage and may be disregarded if the remaining allegations are sufficient to charge a crime.” Id. (internal citations omitted). See also United States v. Knuckles, 581 F.2d 305, 308-12 (2d Cir.1978); (stating that “[t]he operative facts were the same whether the controlled substance was heroin or cocaine” and concluding that “the variance was not substantial”); Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209, 223, 73 S.Ct. 1055, 97 L.Ed. 1557 (1953) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, in the present case, section 545
holding that the amendment made to the indictment in this case was not authorized by code  192231 because the amended indictment materially changed the nature of the offense originally charged holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense holding that the amendment of the indictment was permissible under the statutory predecessor to code  192231 because the amendment did not within the meaning of the statute change the nature of the offense charged in the original indictment holding that the insertion of surplus words in the indictment does not change the nature of the offense charged holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself