1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2974

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

James Benford, *

* 

Appellant. *

 ___________

Submitted: March 9, 2004

Filed: March 18, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

James Benford (Benford) appeals his conviction and sentence. After waiving

a jury trial, the district court1

 found Benford guilty of one count of conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. At

sentencing, the district court denied Benford a reduction for a minor role in the

offense and sentenced him to 324 months imprisonment and a five-year term of

supervised release. On appeal, Benford argues the district court erred in finding a
2

single conspiracy rather than multiple conspiracies, and also erred in denying him a

minor role reduction. We affirm.

Whether the government’s proof at trial established only a single conspiracy

or multiple conspiracies is a question of fact, United States v. Morales, 113 F.3d 116,

118 (8th Cir. 1997), which we review for clear error, United States v. Contreras, 283

F.3d 914, 916 (8th Cir. 2002). “A single conspiracy is composed of individuals

sharing common purposes or objectives under one general agreement.” Morales, 113

F.3d at 118-19 (internal quotations omitted). “A single conspiracy may exist even if

the participants and their activities change over time, and even if many participants

are unaware of, or uninvolved in, some of the transactions.” Contreras, 283 F.3d at

916 (quoting United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403, 412 (8th Cir. 1999)).

In order for Benford to prevail on his theory of fatal variance between the

single conspiracy charged in the indictment and the government’s proof of multiple

conspiracies at trial, Benford must first establish the existence of a variance, and he

must also show the variance affected his substantial rights. United States v. LopezArce, 267 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2001). We will reverse only if we find the evidence

adduced at trial does not support a finding of a single conspiracy, and we determine

Benford was prejudiced by the variance. Id. Viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the verdict, the evidence adduced at trial amply supports the district

court’s finding of a single conspiracy, which (1) had as its common goal the

possession and sale of large quantities of crack cocaine in east Omaha, (2) continued

over a long period of time, and (3) included members of the same street gang. Id. at

782. Furthermore, we conclude Benford suffered no prejudice because he was the

only defendant being tried, and he would clearly be “implicated in any other

conspiracy the evidence could [conceivably] prove.” Id. at 781.

Next, Benford contends the district court erred in denying him a two-level

reduction for being a minor participant. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The Application
3

Notes define a minor participant as a participant “who is less culpable than most other

participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2,

cmt. n.5. Benford bears the burden of proving he is entitled to a minor participant

role reduction. United States v. Speller, 356 F.3d 904, 907 (8th Cir. 2004). Whether

a particular defendant qualifies for a role reduction under the Sentencing Guidelines

is a question of fact, United States v. Thurmon, 278 F.3d 790, 792 (8th Cir. 2002),

which we review for clear error, United States v. Surratt, 172 F.3d 559, 567 (8th Cir.

1999). The district court found that, in distributing two and a half kilos of crack

cocaine over a long period of time, Benford did not play a minor role in the

conspiracy when compared to other co-conspirators. We conclude Benford, a streetlevel dealer, failed to prove he was less culpable than most of his co-conspirators, and

the district court did not err in denying Benford a role reduction.

Accordingly, we affirm Benford’s conviction and sentence. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________