supplemented with the appellant’s state court indictment, judicial confession, and judgment when he appealed the application of a sentencing enhancement for a state conviction). 41 . Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d at 273 (citing Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143). 42 . Garcia-Arellano, 522 F.3d at 480. 43 . See id. at 480-81. 44 . See United States v. Perales-Solis, 275 Fed.Appx. 443, 445-46 (5th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citing United States v. Morales-Martinez, 496 F.3d 356, 358-61 (5th Cir.2007)). 45 . Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim.App.2009). 46 . 522 F.3d at 479 (discussing U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(l)(B)). 47 . Id. at 480. 48 . Id. at 481. 49 . Id. 50 . Id.; see also United States v. Perales-Solis, 275 Fed.Appx. 443, 446 (5th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). 51 . See United States v. Martinez-Vega, 471
holdingthat an error in instructing the jury that an offense could be committed by a statutory method not charged in the indictment is cured where  the court provides the jury with the indictment and instructs jurors that the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt  citation omitted holding that the striking similarity between the acts alleged in the indictment and the prior incidents rendered incidents that occurred fifteen years prior to the acts alleged in the indictment relevant and admissible under rule 404b 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 a judicial confession in which the defendantappellant admitted that he committed the acts alleged and that if the states witnesses were sworn in and testified they would testify that i committed each and every element alleged removed any potential ambiguity in the conjunctively charged indictment holding that when an indictment charges several acts conjunctively under a statute which subjects several alternative acts to the same punishment the government need only prove violation of one of the alleged acts to prove violation of the statute