The Honor able He rman J. W eber , United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Southern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0092n.06 F iled: F ebruary 6, 2007 No. 05-6179 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. J OHNNYE. PI

NGL ETON, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be fore : DAUGHT REY and COOK, Circ uit J udg es; WEBER, District J udg e. *
CO OK , Ci rc uit J ud g e . Joh nn y Pin g le ton

c ha lle ng e s h is v ari ou s d

ru g -r e late d c on vic tio ns . We a ff ir m.
I
I n late 2003, Pingle ton and Tim Hardingbeg an to con s p i re t o manufa cture methamphetamine: Ha

rding allowed Ping leton to use hi s barn a s a druglaboratory in exchang e for a shar e of the drugs p ro d u ced. I n ear ly 2004, Kentucky

police ca ug ht Pingleton in possession of methamphetamine, and Pingleton a dmitted to the police that he had r ece ntly manufa cture dNo. 05-6179

United States v. Pingleton

- 2 - m et h am p h et am i n e w i t h Ha rd i n g at Ha rd i n g’s re s i d en ce . T h e p o l i ce re l ea s ed P i n gl et o n i nex ch an ge for his promise to notify them when Ha rding next m anufa cture d drug s. Soon thereaf ter, the police visited Harding ’s re s i d en ce t o serve a summons and found a methamphetamine la

b, chemica l prec ursors of the drug , and finished pr oduct. Duringthis visi t, they arr ested L isa Wit t and interviewe d Har ding’ s minor s o n , wh o told police that Pingleton had pa id him to remove pseudoephe drine pills from blister pac ks to make methamphe tamine. Har ding w as not prese nt, but Kentucky police ar rested him da y s later. And a bout a month later, Ohio police arr ested Ha rding (havingbeen r elea sed by

Kentucky

), Witt , Satica Va

nce, a nd J ohn Rodefer , who were re turning from I ndiana, whe re the y

had boug ht materials to manufa cture methamphetamine. A g rand jury

initially indicted Har ding, Witt, and Rodefer (but not Pingleton) for conspiring to manufac ture methamphetamine (a mong othe r o ffenses). Ha rding and Witt pl eade d g uilty and
a g re e d to coo pe rate , an d th e g ov e rnme nt f ile d a Sup e rs e din g I nd ic tme nt c ha rg ing , in re le va nt p art , that “J o h n n y

E
. P i n gl et o nan d

J o h nE
. R o d ef

er d i d co n s p i re ” t o m an u fa ct u re m et h am p h et am i n e. The g overnme nt then filed a Sec ond SupersedingI ndictment char g ing the conspirac y betwee n Pingleton and Rodefer in the same languag e (Count I ), and a lso charg ing Ping leton with severa l substantive violations of the fede ral druglaws (Count s I I , I I I , I V). Dur ing disc overy , the g overnme nt provided Pin g le ton wi th Wi tt’ s sta te me nt imp lic a tin g Pin g le ton in a c on sp ir a c y

inv olv ingHa

rd ingand a lso stated its intent to rely

on Pingleton’s state ment to Kentucky police that he ha d manufa cture d methamphetamine w ith Harding . A jury convicted Ping leton on th e co n s p i ra cy count and the
su bs tanti ve c ounts , b ut a c qu itt e d Ro de fe r o n th e c on sp ir a c y c ount.No. 05-6179

United States v. Pingleton

A “list Ichemica l” is a che mical used in and important to the manufac ture of a controlled 1 subs t an ce . 2 1 U. S .C. § 802(34). Pseudoephe drine is a “ list I chemica l,” id. § 8 02 (3 4) (K), that is used to make me thamphetamine. - 3 - II
Co unt I V of th e Se c o n d

Su p e r s e d in g I n d ic tm e n t c h ar g e d Pi n g le to nw it

h “ p o s s e s s [i n g ] a
me a sura ble qu anti ty

of ps e ud oe ph e dr ine , a

L ist Ic he mic a l, k

no wi ngand

havin g re a so na

ble c a us e to be l i e v e t h a tt h e p s e u d o e p h e dr i n e w o u l d b e u s e d t o m anu f

a c tu r e a c o n t r o l l e d

s u b s t an c e , ” in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2)
. Pingleton unsucc essfully moved for acquittal, ar g uing that the 1 g ov e rnme nt f

a ile d to pr ov e tha

t ps e ud oe ph e dr ine is a “ lis t I c he mic a l” (whic h Pi ng le ton a sse rt s is
an e sse nti a l e le me nt o f t

he of fe ns e ) b e c a

us e it o ff e re d n o p ro of

on the iss ue and

the dis tr ic t c ourt

did
no t take jud ic ia l no tic e of it. Whe n r e vie wi ngthe de nia l of a mot ion fo r a c qu itt a l, the q

ue sti on is “whe ther the e vidence was suff icient to submit t he ca se to the jury at the completion of the e vidence for the U nited States.” Un ite d S tates v . Na bo rs , 901 F.2d 1351, 1357 (6th Cir. 1990). We hold that the district court properly denied the motion for acquittal: fede ral lawdefine s pseudoephe drine a s
a “ lis t I c he mic a l,” so no e vid e nc e wa s n e c e ssa ry to p ro ve thi s p oin t.
P i n g l e t o n ’ s c l a i m i s s qu ar e l y g o v e r n e d b y United States v. W ynn , 987 F.2d 354 ( 6th Cir. 1993). In W

ynn , th e de fe nd ant w a s c ha rg e d w ithus ingan in terst ate c omm e rc e fa c ili ty to s oli c it
mur de r, in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 19 58 . 9 87 F .2 d at 35 5. Se c tio n 1 95 8 r e qu ir e s “ int e nt t hat a
mur de r b e c omm itt e d in

vio latio n o f t

he laws of any State or the Un ite d State s. ” At Wy nn ’s tr ia l, the g overnme nt “did not pres en t any evidenc e which show ed that murde r violates the law s of theNo. 05-6179

United States v. Pingleton

We note also that nothing was improper in the district c ourt’s failure to take judicial notice 2 t h at p s eudoephe drine is a “ list I chemica l.” See W ynn , 987 F.2d at 358 (“[T]he phrase ‘judicial notice’ a pplies to facts, not laws.” ). - 4 - State of Tenne ssee.” W

ynn , 987 F.2d at 356. But this c ourt upheld the district c o u rt ’s d en i al of Wy nn’s motion for ac quittal, reasoningthat “[o] ur judicial sy stem require s the prosec ution to prove fac ts, not laws.” Id. at 358. The pr osecution thus did not need to prove that murder w as ag ainst the laws of Te nnessee , even thoug h it is a component of the fed er al crime. Id. Pin g le ton ’s c a se is analog ous. That pseudoe phedrine is a “list I chemica l” i s surely a compone nt of the cha rg e under 21 U. S.C. § 8 41 (c )( 2) , b ut it is a le g a l c omp on e nt, no t a fa c tua l c omp on e nt. Pse ud oe ph e dr ine is a

“ l i s tI c h e m i c a l ” b e c a

u s e f e d e r a l l aw d e f

i n e s i ta s s u c h , n o tb e c a

u s e t h e j u r

y s o f i n d s i to na

c a s e - b ycase basis. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(34)(K) . There fore , the g overnme nt did not need to offe r any evidenc e that pseudoe phedrine is a “list Ichemica l,” and we reje ct Pingleton’ s challeng e. 2
III
Count I of the ind ic tme nt c harged th at “Johnny E. Pin g le ton

and JohnE. Rod e fe r d id
c o n s p i r e t o kn o w i n g l y

an d i n t e n t i o n a l l y m anu f

a c tu r e f i f t y g r a m s o r

m o r e o f m e t h a mp h e t a m i n e . ” In Pingleton’s view, this languag e alleg es that he and Rodefer conspired with e ach othe r—and no one else—such that when the district cour t allowed the g overnme nt to introduce evidence of a conspira cy inv olv ingoth e r p e rs on s, this w a s an im pe rm iss ibl e “ c on str

uc tiv e a me ndme nt” of

the ind ic tme nt. Applying de novo revie w, see U nited States v. Flowal , 163 F.3d 956, 962 ( 6th Cir. 1998), we disce rn no constructive a

mendment to the indictment.No. 05-6179

United States v. Pingleton

Pingleton ar g ues (unpe rsuasively ) that as a

lingu i s t i c m att er, the words “did c onspire” 3 nece ssarily

limit the cha

rg ed conspira cy to two people. Neither of the case s cited in his brie f support this posit ion beca

use in both, the indictment contains languag e limiting the ver b that descr ibes the il le g a l a c tion. See U

nited States v. Keller , 9 16 F .2 d 6 28 , 6 32 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 1) (d e fe nd ants “ did c omb ine , c on sp ir e , a g re e and have a ta c it und e rs tand ingwi th o ne ano the r” ); United States v. Salinas , 654 F.2d 319, 323 n.7 ( 5th Cir. Unit A Aug. 1981) (def endants a ided and a

betted “e ach othe r”)
. - 5 - To establish a constructive amendment, Pingleton mus t show that both the evidenc e off ere d at trial and the jury instructions “ eff ectively alter[ed] the terms of the indictment and modifie [d] the essential ele ments of the cha rg ed off ense . . . .” United States v. Hy nes , 467 F.3d 951, 962 (6th Cir. 2006). Since both the g overnme nt’s proof a nd the jury

instructio n s re fe rr ed to a conspira cy involving two or more persons, this case turns on wheth er t h e S econd Superseding I ndictment char g ed a c onspiracy

involving two or more persons.
Count I c ha rg e d th a t “ John ny

E. Pin g le ton and

JohnE. Rod e fe r d id c on sp ir e to k no wi ng ly and intent i o n ally

manufa cture fifty

g rams or more of methamphe tamine.” Ty pical conspira cy indictments, however , add re strictive languag e such a s “with ea ch other ” or ex pansive languag e such
as “with others known and unknown.” L ike the district c ourt, we are troubled by the at y p ical wordingthe g overnme nt employ ed her e and do not sa nction the future use of similarly ph rased indi ctments. Nonethe less, under the particula r circ umstances of

this case, we conclude the ind ic tme nt c ha

rg e s a c on sp ir a c y

inv olv ingtw o o r m or e pe rs on s.
On on e ha nd , a s a lin g uis tic matte r, we ag re e wi th t he g ov e rnme nt t

hat th e wo rd s “ did conspire” need not be rea d restric tively to exclude other actor s from the c onspiracy
. On the other 3No. 05-6179

United States v. Pingleton

Al tho ug h it

do e s n ot, str ic tly

sp e a kin g , in fo rm

our c on str

uc tio n o f the ind ic tme nt, we no te 4 that the trial court twice asked whether Pingleton had reque sted a bill of particula rs. Pingleton ne ver did , w hic h d imi nis he s th e fo rc e of any argume nt t

ha t he lac ked no tic e of

the c ha rg e s a g a ins t hi m. - 6 - ha nd , s ome c on fu sio n a

ri se s in thi s c a se be c a

us e the ind ic tme nt l ist s tw o ( and on ly tw o) a c tor s, Pingleton and Rode fer
. Expressio unis e st exc lusio alt erius , Pingleton mig ht argue. B ut under the circ umstances of this case , we conclude that the i ndictment should be read to char g e a c onspiracy involving two or

mo re persons. First, the g overnme nt provided P ingle ton with discovery evidenc e indicating that the cha

rg ed conspira cy

was not l imited to him and Rodefe r. The g overnme nt stated its int ent to rely on Pingleton’s own statement to police that he had manufa cture d methamphetamine wi th H ard ingand

a lso pr ov ide d Pi ng le ton wi th Wi tt’ s st a te me nt t hat Pin g le ton

ha d c on sp ir e d w ith Har ding. This clar ifies any linguistic ambiguity in the i ndictment and foreclose s any argument that Pingleton lac ked notice that the char g ed conspiracy included co- conspirator s bey ond Rodefer
. Second, not to construe this indictment to c harg e a conspirac y involving two or more pe rsons might
cre ate tension with the g ener al rule that the prosec ution ne ed not furnish co-c onspirators’ na mes as long a s the defe ndant has notice o f t h e conspira cy with which he is cha

rg ed. See United States v. Rey , 9 2 3 F. 2 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 2 2 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( ci t i n g Un ite d S tates v . P ic c olo , 7 23 F .2 d 1 23 4, 12 39 (6 th Cir . 1 98 3) ); United States v. Crayton , 357 F.3d 560, 568 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (c i t i n g R ey ). He re, Pin g le ton ha d a de qu a te no tic e that th e c on sp ir a c y wa s n ot l imi ted to him

and Rod e fe r. F or

the se
rea sons and under

these pa rticular c ircumstance s, we hold that the indictment char g ed a c onspiracy inv olv ingtw o o r m or e pe rs on s, and thu s th e re wa s n o c on str

uc tiv e a me ndme nt. 4No. 05-6179

United States v. Pingleton

- 7 - IV Pingleton also c omplains g ener ally about his tria l. He cites no leg al authority and strug g les to a rt ic ulate a the or y , a nd we dis c e rn

no c la im o n w hic h h e c ou ld p re va il. First, Pingle ton complains that the g overnme nt’s witnesses we re not c redible. This c ould be viewed a s a cha lleng e to the suff iciency of the ev i dence , but if so, it fails. I n revie wing the suf f ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e , ana

p p e ll a te c o u rt “ ma

y n o t c o n s id e r

th e c r e d ib il it

y o f w it n e s s es.” United States v. Jam ieson , 427 F.3d 394, 402 (6th Cir. 2005). Pingleton arg ues t hat t he fact that the g overnme nt did not file a substantial-assistance motion under Sen t en ci n g Gu idelines § 5K1.1 on be ha lf of Ti m H ard ingsu g g e sts that Hardingwa s n ot c re dib le . Pl a us ibl e a s th a t ma

y so un d, thi s
c ourt sti ll c ann ot re vie w Ha rd ing ’s c re dib ili ty wh e n a sse ssi ng the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e a g a ins t Pingleton. Second, Pingleton complains that he was convicted while Rodefer was acquitted, wh i ch could be view ed as a

complaint of “inc onsistent verdicts.” B ut upon closer inspec tion, Pi ng leton does not complain that Rodefe r’s c onspiracy acquittal is inconsistent with his conspirac y conviction; ins te a d, he c omp la ins on ly of pr e jud ic e “ a s to Cou

nts I I , I I I , and I V. ” Th e re is n oth inglog ic a lly inc on sis te nt i n th e c on c lus ion that Pin g le ton c omm itt e d se ve ra l su bs tanti ve of

fe ns e s b ut R od e fe r d id not criminally

conspire w ith any one. Third, Pingleton c omplains that the introduction of evidenc e on the conspirac y count (CountNo. 05-6179

United States v. Pingleton

- 8 - I ) somehow pr ejudiced him as to the substantive c ounts (Counts I I , I I I , I V). I f he means to ar g ue the re wa s in su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e to c on vic t on the su bs tanti ve c ount s, but th e jur y c on vic te d h im any way on the basis of evidence admitted on the conspiracy count, t his claim fa ils. “We presume, unless the def

endant c arr ies a strongburden of showing to the contra

ry , that the jury

is ‘capa ble of sorting out evidence and conside ring eac h count and e ach de fenda nt separately .’” United States v. Ru gie ro , 2 0 F. 3 d

1 3 8 7 , 1 3 9 1 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Un ite d S tates v . S wift , 8 09 F .2 d 3 20 , 3 23 (6 th Cir . 1 98 7) ). Re c or d te sti mony su pp or ts Pi ng le ton ’s c on vic tion on the su bs tanti ve c ounts , a

nd his only attempt to meet the hea

vy burden of Ru

gie ro is by attackingthe cr edibility of the witnesse s who g ave this t estimony
. As stated above , this court “may not consider the c redibility of witnesses” when
r e v ie w in g th e s u f

f ic ie n c y o f th e evidenc e. Jamieson , 427 F.3d at 402. I f he me ans to argue (a s sug g ested at oral argument) that if we reve rse the conspirac y conviction, we must a lso rever se the
c on vic tio ns on

the subs tan ti ve cou

nts a s ta int e d b y

e vid e nc e a dmi tte d o n th e c on sp ir a c y c ount, Pingleton fa

res no be tter bec ause w e af firm the conspira cy

conviction.
V
For these re asons, we a ffirm Ping leton’s conviction.