NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL STEBBINS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 30066

D.C. Nos. 4:20

- cr
- 00049

- BMM

- 1 4:20

- cr
- 00049

- BMM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2022

Portland, Oregon

Before: PAEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, * * District Judge.
Appellant Christopher Stebbins was charged with and convicted of
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1) , 846 and Attempted Possession with Intent to Distribute
Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2

. Stebbins

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 28 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

appeals his convictions and the district court’s 150

- month sentence

. We affirm both

of Stebbins’ convictions and his 150

- month sentence.

1. T here was sufficient evidence to sustain Stebbins’ conspiracy conviction.
Although Stebbins’ co

- conspirator denied that they had explicitly agreed to sell meth
together, a conspiracy may be inferred from the defendants’ conduct or other

circumstantial evidence. United States v. Lapier , 796 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.
2015). At trial, the jury heard testimony that Stebbins received increasingly large

amounts of meth and that his seller broke down the meth into two

- ounce baggies.
The shipments started with a quarter

- pound package of meth and culminat ed in a

two

- pound package of meth that led to Stebbins’ arrest. The jury also heard
testimony that Stebbins ’ seller connect ed him with other meth suppliers, re lay ed
Stebbins’ specific packaging instructions to the new suppliers , and assumed
financial responsibility for a lost package of meth that was supposed to be sent to
and paid for by Stebbins.
Stebbins argues that there was only a buyer

- seller relationsh ip with his co

conspirator, but a rational juror could have found that there was a tacit agreement to

sell meth

. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)

.

2. T he testimony of Stebbins’ fiancé e , Troylynn Brown, was sufficient

evidence to sustain his possession with intent to distribute conviction.
Although portions of Brown’s testimony contradicted her previous statements3

to law enforcement agents, her testimony that she intended to use some of the meth

that Ste bbins bought was uncontradicted. The jury was properly instructed on its
ability to determine Brown’s credibility and Stebbins has not demonstrated that her
testimony was so incredible that we must overrule the jury’s determination. See

United States v. Yossunthorn, 167 F.3d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1999) ; United States v.
Leung, 35 F.3d 1402, 1405 (9th Cir. 1994)

. Therefore , a juror could reasonably

conclude that Stebbins intended to distribute the meth to Brown , and the evidence

was sufficient to sustain his conviction.

3. T he district court did not err in imposing a 150

- month sentence. The
district court explicitly stated that it considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors when imposing the sentence that was 38 months below Stebbins’ guideline

rang e

. The district court also properly summarized and addressed that Stebbins’ co
conspirator’s sentence did not warrant Stebbins receiving less than 150 months.
Stebbins’ sentence was therefore not procedur ally erroneous and is substantively

reasonable. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 46 , 49

- 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.