In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________

No. 01-4070

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY ROCK,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division.

No. 01 CR 1—Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.

____________

ARGUED APRIL 5, 2004—DECIDED JUNE 8, 2004

____________

Before BAUER, POSNER, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit

Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge. This direct appeal arises from

Timothy Rock’s 2001 conviction for conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.

Rock raises the sole issue of whether sufficient evidence

was presented at trial to support his conspiracy conviction.

For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

The relevant events occurred in December of 2000. At

that time, Detective Carl Lamb was posing as a drug buyer

in the area around Seymour, Indiana. Lamb had been

purchasing small quantities of methamphetamine from two
2 No. 01-4070

men, Nicholas Beverstock and Matthew Thompson. On

December 18, Lamb asked to purchase a larger quantity—

one pound—of methamphetamine; Beverstock agreed to sell

it to him for $23,000. The exchange was to take place the

next day, but Beverstock did not have such a large quantity

of the drug. After enlisting the help of his brother-in-law

(Delbert Allman), Beverstock eventually found a supplier

who could deliver the requested pound of methamphetamine; an acquaintance named Timothy Rock. Allman

contacted Rock to set up the deal. 

Over the telephone Rock inquired for whom Beverstock

was procuring the methamphetamine; after being satisfied

that Lamb could be trusted, Rock agreed to provide

Beverstock with one pound of methamphetamine for sale to

Lamb. When Rock arrived at Allman’s home, however, he

produced only a half-pound of the drug. The second half,

Rock said, would be delivered after he was paid in full for

the transaction. Beverstock and Thompson took the halfpound of methamphetamine to their designated meeting

spot with Lamb—the Jackson/Washington State Forest.

Rock also drove to the State Forest with Allman to secretly

monitor the sale, carrying with him the second half-pound

of methamphetamine. The meeting went as planned and,

after discussion, Lamb paid Beverstock and Thompson

$11,500 for the half-pound of methamphetamine. Immediately following the transaction, officers arrested Beverstock

and Thompson. Rock and Allman fled the scene, Rock

disposed of a cooler containing the remainder of the drugs,

and helped Allman remove equipment used in selling

methamphetamine from his home. 

Rock was arrested in January 2001. He was tried and

convicted later that year. Rock now appeals, claiming there

was insufficient evidence to convict him of the conspiracy

charge.
No. 01-4070 3

Discussion

In appeals regarding sufficiency of the evidence we generally consider whether “after viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Pearson, 113

F.3d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 1997) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia,

443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Because Rock did not file a

motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 29, however, we review the jury’s findings only for plain error. United States v. Williams, 298

F.3d 688, 691-92 (7th Cir. 2002). This standard significantly

limits our review of the case; we will only reverse if, “the

conviction amounted to a manifest miscarriage of justice.”

Id. 

Rock argues the government failed to present sufficient

evidence to support the conspiracy charge. Under 21 U.S.C.

§ 846, a conspiracy exists where “(1) two or more people

agreed to commit an unlawful act and (2) the defendant

knowingly and intentionally joined in the agreement.”

United States v. Gardner, 238 F.3d 878, 879 (7th Cir. 2001).

This Court has held that in the case of drug conspiracies it

is not enough for the government to demonstrate that a

defendant is a participant in a mere buyer-seller relationship because, “such an agreement is itself the substantive

crime.” United States v. Hach, 162 F.3d 937, 942-43 (7th

Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Clay, 37 F.3d 338, 341

(7th Cir. 1994)). Rather, the government must prove that

the defendant conspired to commit some crime beyond that

agreement to sell drugs. 

Rock and the government present two slightly different

descriptions of the activities of December 18 and 19, 2000.

For his part, Rock argues that he sold the methamphetamine to Beverstock and Thompson, who subsequently sold

the methamphetamine to Lamb. On the other hand, the
4 No. 01-4070

1 To carry the analysis one step further than is required by these

facts, if we were to believe Rock’s scenario—that he was on the

opposite side of a transaction with Beverstock and Thompson—

we would then consider the following four factors to determine the

presence of conspiracy: (1) the length of the affiliation between the

buyer and seller; (2) whether there was an established method of

payment; (3) whether transactions were standardized; and (4)

whether there was a demonstrated level of mutual trust. United

States v. Hach, 162 F.3d 937, 943 (7th Cir. 1998). Because we

affirm the government’s version of the facts, we need not apply

this test as urged by Rock.

government argues that Rock worked in concert with

Beverstock and Thompson to sell the methamphetamine to

Lamb. The significance of the differing descriptions is that

in the first, Rock does not participate in a crime beyond the

admitted sale to Beverstock and Thompson (hence, there is

no conspiracy), whereas in the second scenario, Rock is

conspiring with Beverstock and Thompson to sell the

methamphetamine to a third party. Clearly these two

differing accounts call for a sensitive factual determination.1

The government has no trouble backing up its theory that

Rock was an active participant in the sale of methamphetamine to Lamb. It points out that, from the outset, Rock

was concerned with the identity of the third-party purchaser, and that he intended to be paid from the proceeds

of the sale to the third party and not by Beverstock or

Thompson independently. It points to the fact that Rock

trusted Beverstock and Thompson with $11,500 worth of

methamphetamine to show they were on the same side of

the transaction. Additionally, Rock personally went to the

meeting place to monitor the transaction with Lamb. These

facts demonstrate that Rock’s involvement in the sale went

beyond his dealings with Beverstock and Thompson; he had

a personal investment in the sale of the methamphetamine
No. 01-4070 5

to Lamb. Case law is clear that when defendants are on the

same side of a sale of drugs to a third party, there is

sufficient evidence of a conspiracy. United States v. Herrera,

54 F.3d 348, 353-54 (7th Cir. 1995).

Because we give deference to the jury’s findings, and

because we review now only for plain error, we have no

trouble in holding the jury had sufficient evidence on which

to base its verdict. Accordingly, Rock’s conviction is AFFIRMED.

A true Copy:

Teste: 

 ________________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—6-8-04