United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1341

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Sarah Chezahrae Goforth, also known as Sarah Hedrick, also known as Darah Bachelor

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: September 18, 2023

Filed: October 6, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Sarah Chezahrae Goforth guilty of conspiring to possess with

intent to distribute and to distribute Schedule III controlled substances, see 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(E), 846, namely, anabolic steroids. She maintains that the district
court1

 should have sua sponte entered a judgment of acquittal because the evidence

was insufficient for conviction. We affirm.

We ordinarily review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo,

viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and granting all

reasonable inferences that the evidence supports. See United States v. Garbacz, 33

F.4th 459, 466 (8th Cir. 2022). And we will reverse only if no reasonable jury could

find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. But here, Goforth forfeited her

sufficiency argument by not bringing it to the attention of the district court, and so we

review merely for plain error. See id. "To establish a conspiracy, the government must

prove: (1) the existence of an agreement among two or more people to achieve an

illegal purpose, (2) the defendant's knowledge of the agreement, and (3) that the

defendant knowingly joined and participated in the agreement." See United States v.

Hamilton, 929 F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir. 2019). 

Goforth maintains that the evidence was insufficient "because there is no

evidence linking Goforth to the possession or distribution of a substance shown by

forensic testing to be a schedule III controlled substance during the course of the

conspiracy." But by charging a conspiracy, the government did not need to prove that

Goforth committed the substantive offenses underlying the conspiracy. See Ocasio

v. United States, 578 U.S. 282, 288 (2016). Besides, the evidence was sufficient to

show that Goforth was actually possessing and distributing steroids. Three coconspirators testified that Goforth stored them and shipped them to customers. "[W]e

have repeatedly upheld jury verdicts based solely on the testimony of conspirators

and cooperating witnesses, noting it is within the province of the jury to make

credibility assessments." See United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir.

2019). Further, "[i]t is well established in this circuit that the identity of a controlled

1The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

-2-
substance can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence and

opinion testimony." See United States v. Cole, 537 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2008). A

postal inspector testified that she seized packages mailed to and from the leader of the

conspiracy, and their contents were tested and confirmed to be anabolic steroids.

Goforth concedes that at least one intercepted package connected to her

contained anabolic steroids, but she says this is insufficient to support her conviction

because she did not mail it until the ringleader of the conspiracy began cooperating

with the government. She cites United States v. Nelson, 165 F.3d 1180, 1184 (8th Cir.

1999) in support of her contention. We explained in Nelson that "[i]t is well settled

that there can be no indictable conspiracy involving only the defendant and

government agents and informers." Nelson is inapposite. Four witnesses testified to

being participants in this conspiracy, and their testimonies implicated others who

joined and left the conspiracy at varying times. In addition, the ringleader himself

testified that Goforth had begun participating "[l]ong before" he began cooperating

with the government, and the jury was entitled to accept that testimony as true.

Affirmed.

______________________________

-3-