Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01475/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01475-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David S. Detweiler
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1475

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

David S. Detweiler, *

*

Appellant. *

__________

Submitted: June 16, 2006

Filed: July 7, 2006

___________

Before BYE, LAY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

David S. Detweiler (Detweiler) appeals his conviction for conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), and 846. He claims

the evidence showed mere buyer-seller arrangements or, at most, multiple conspiracies

between Detweiler and other individuals, and thus the evidence was insufficient to

prove one large conspiracy. Detweiler further argues, because there was no single

conspiracy involving 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, the jury’s drug

quantity finding was unsupported by the evidence. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-1475 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2064849
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

At trial, the government called eight witnesses who described their drug

dealings with Detweiler. Wendy Esquivel (Esquivel) testified that for about four

months during 2003, she provided five to six ounces of methamphetamine per week

to her then roommate, Troy Berner (Berner). Berner then sold methamphetamine

from Esquivel’s apartment to different customers, including Detweiler. Esquivel

testified Detweiler purchased quantities ranging from one-eighth ounce to two ounces

at a time, but usually one ounce, at least several times per week. Sales also occurred

at Detweiler’s residence. Detweiler occasionally purchased the drugs on credit, and

Esquivel testified Detweiler occasionally told Berner others were waiting to purchase

the drugs.

Testimony by other witnesses detailed how and to whom Detweiler sold

methamphetamine. Brian Manchester (Manchester) testified Detweiler sold him oneeighth ounce to one ounce quantities sporadically during winter 2002 through fall

2003. Manchester usually paid cash, but occasionally he obtained the drugs on credit.

Manchester once purchased methamphetamine from Detweiler to sell the drugs to

Jason Ramsay (Ramsay). Ramsay testified Detweiler would not deal with him

directly, because Ramsay previously had been arrested for possession of drugs.

Manchester also testified Detweiler sold drugs to Tryson Peak (Peak), Peak sold

drugs to Manchester, and Peak owed money to Detweiler for past drug debts.

Detweiler told Manchester he sent some people to collect from Peak, succeeding in

collecting only some of the debt. Detweiler asked Manchester in the summer of 2002

to help him collect the remaining money. 

Testimony also included details of Detweiler supplying other individuals with

methamphetamine, including Darren Cink (Cink) (one-sixteenth to one-eighth ounce

quantities on twenty to thirty occasions in 2002), John Chism (Chism), Richard

Roberts (Roberts) (one-half gram to one-fourth ounce quantities five to six times

Appellate Case: 06-1475 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2064849
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

-3-

during the spring and summer of 2003), Ryan Johnson, Matt Spires, and Anthony

Campbell.

During jury deliberations, the jury asked several questions. The jury first asked,

“Can it be considered a conspiracy if an individual sells to another for personal use,

or does there need to be a presumption that that methamphetamine would then be sold

to another individual? What is the definition of conspiracy? Please put this definition

in layman’s terms.” The jury also asked, “Is it a conspiracy if a sale or purchase is

made?” In response, the district court1

 gave the following instructions:

First, please reread the instructions. Second, if an individual sells

methamphetamine to another person for personal use, this may or may

not be evidence of a conspiracy. Third, a person does not become a

member of a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine or possess with

intent to distribute methamphetamine merely because he or she

purchased methamphetamine from an alleged conspirator or sold

methamphetamine to an alleged conspirator.

Detweiler did not object to the district court’s additional instructions.

The jury found Detweiler guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. Detweiler appeals his

conviction and the jury’s drug quantity finding.

II. DISCUSSION

“We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence, examining the evidence

in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and giving the verdict the benefit of all

reasonable inferences. The verdict will not be disturbed unless no reasonable

construction of the evidence will support the jury’s verdict.” United States v.

Appellate Case: 06-1475 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2064849
-4-

Wintermute, 443 F.3d 993, 1003 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation and citation

omitted). To convict Detweiler of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine,

the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a

conspiracy with an illegal purpose existed, (2) [Detweiler] knew about

the conspiracy, and (3) he knowingly became part of the conspiracy. To

prove the existence of a conspiracy, the government may provide

information regarding how long [the co-conspirators] were associated

with each other, their established methods of payment, whether or not

their transactions were standardized, and their demonstrated level of

mutual trust.

United States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we

conclude there was sufficient evidence to prove Detweiler knowingly participated in

a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Detweiler repeatedly purchased

methamphetamine from Berner, then sold methamphetamine to regular customers

including Manchester, Peak, Cink, Chism, and Roberts, and made one-time sales to

others. Some of those customers then sold methamphetamine to others. Notably,

Detweiler occasionally acquired drugs on credit and sometimes provided drugs to

others on credit. In sum, “the evidence showed an agreement to distribute

methamphetamine involving the same individuals in the same locations . . . throughout

the time period,” United States v. Burns, 432 F.3d 856, 863-64 (8th Cir. 2005), thus

demonstrating a single, large conspiracy composed of several interlocking rings in

which Detweiler was a consistent member.

The jury’s initial confusion about the definition of a conspiracy does not alter

our conclusion. The district court accurately addressed the jury’s questions, and

Detweiler did not object. Having been duly instructed, the jury found Detweiler

guilty. We therefore hold a reasonable jury could have concluded Detweiler

Appellate Case: 06-1475 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2064849
-5-

knowingly became part of a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine.

Finally, the jury properly determined the conspiracy involved 500 grams or

more of methamphetamine. Looking only to quantities Detweiler purchased from

Berner for resale, Detweiler purchased on average one ounce of methamphetamine,

several times per week, for a period of about four months. Taking the evidence in the

light most favorable to the government, this definitively demonstrates the conspiracy

involved 500 grams or more of methamphetamine.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, we affirm Detweiler’s conviction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1475 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2064849