[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15164

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cr-00064-RH-CAS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

DERRICK ADAMS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(December 22, 2016)

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-15164 Date Filed: 12/22/2016 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Derrick Adams appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and 

possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base and cocaine.

1

 

Specifically, he seeks review of the district court’s denial of his motion for a 

judgment of acquittal. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 

record, we affirm.

I

In October 2014, Adams and two others, Anthony Wyatt and Mary Davis, 

were indicted for various drug offenses. The indictment alleged, among other 

things, that between “January 1, 2013, and October 7, 2014,” Adams, Wyatt, and 

Davis conspired “together and with other persons to distribute and possess with 

intent to distribute . . . two hundred eighty (280) grams or more of . . . cocaine base 

. . . and cocaine.” 

At trial, the government offered evidence that Adams sold cocaine base to 

Wyatt and that Adams purchased cocaine base from an out-of-state supplier. First, 

Wyatt—who was Adams’s neighbor—testified that from May 2014 through July 

2014, he regularly purchased cocaine base from Adams. According to Wyatt, he 

bought the cocaine base from Adams with the intent to resell it for profit. Second, 

three witnesses testified that Adams purchased cocaine base from an out-of-state 

supplier. Two witnesses stated that in 2013 they drove with Adams to purchase 

 1 Adams was also convicted of five counts of distribution of cocaine base and cocaine. 

He does not challenge those convictions on appeal. 

Case: 15-15164 Date Filed: 12/22/2016 Page: 2 of 7 
3

cocaine base from the out-of-state supplier. The supplier himself also testified. He 

testified that he (1) sold over 1,000 grams of cocaine base to Adams from early 

2013 through early 2014, (2) sold Adams drugs at Adams’s residence on a number 

of occasions, and (3) recognized Wyatt because he saw Wyatt and Adams together 

before.

At the conclusion of the government’s case, Adams moved for a judgment of

acquittal on the drug conspiracy charged in his indictment, arguing that the 

government failed to prove the conspiracy involved 280 grams or more of cocaine

base and cocaine. The district court deferred ruling on the motion until the 

conclusion of trial. After the jury’s guilty verdict but prior to sentencing, Adams 

filed a memorandum of law in support of the motion. 

In the memorandum, Adams asserted that the government charged him for a

mid-2014 conspiracy with Wyatt and Davis but only showed that the conspiracy 

involved 160 grams of cocaine base and cocaine, not the 280 grams required for a 

conviction. According to Adams, the government improperly relied on a separate, 

unindicted conspiracy—his conspiracy with the out-of-state supplier—to bolster 

the quantity of drugs attributable to him and convict him for conspiring to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of drugs. In 

other words, Adams contended that, rather than proving the single conspiracy for 

Case: 15-15164 Date Filed: 12/22/2016 Page: 3 of 7 
4

which he was charged, the government varied from his indictment and obtained a 

conviction based on multiple conspiracies.

The district court denied Adams’s motion. The court concluded that a jury 

could have reasonably found that Adams’s dealings with Wyatt and the out-of-state 

supplier were part of the same conspiracy charged in Adams’s indictment. This 

appeal followed.

II

The district court did not err in denying Adams’s motion for a judgment of 

acquittal.2

 In challenging the district court’s denial of the motion, Adams reiterates

his claim that the government varied from his indictment and showed multiple 

conspiracies rather than proving the single conspiracy for which he was charged. 

However, “[w]e will not reverse a conviction because a single conspiracy is 

charged in the indictment while multiple conspiracies may have been revealed at 

trial unless the variance is (1) material and (2) substantially prejudiced the 

defendant.” United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1347 (11th Cir. 2007)

(internal quotation marks omitted). And Adams has not shown a material variance.

“The arguable existence of multiple conspiracies does not constitute a

material variance from the indictment if, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could have found that a single 

 2 We review de novo whether the district court erred in denying the motion. See United 

States v. Thompson, 610 F.3d 1335, 1337 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

Case: 15-15164 Date Filed: 12/22/2016 Page: 4 of 7 
5

conspiracy existed beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “[T]he jury makes the initial determination of whether the evidence 

supports a single conspiracy and their determination will not be disturbed if 

supported by substantial evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

“To determine whether the jury could have found a single conspiracy, we 

consider: (1) whether a common goal existed; (2) the nature of the underlying 

scheme; and (3) the overlap of participants.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “If a defendant’s actions facilitated the endeavors of other coconspirators or facilitated the venture as a whole, then a single conspiracy is 

shown.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, “the finding of a single 

conspiracy is permitted where a ‘key man’ directs and coordinates the activities 

and individual efforts of various combinations of people.” Id.

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, 

substantial evidence supports a determination that there was a single conspiracy. 

Adams was indicted for conspiring in 2013 and 2014 with Wyatt and others to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine. The 

evidence demonstrates that during 2013 and 2014, Adams obtained large amounts 

of cocaine base from the out-of-state supplier and sold cocaine base to Wyatt. A

rational trier of fact could find that—consistent with the indictment—Adams’s 

Case: 15-15164 Date Filed: 12/22/2016 Page: 5 of 7 
6

dealings with the supplier and Wyatt were a part of a single drug conspiracy that 

spanned from 2013 through 2014. 

Adams coordinated people, including the supplier and Wyatt, to facilitate the 

purchase, transport, and sale of drugs. He thus served as a “key man,” organizing 

an illegal drug venture, see id. (internal quotation marks omitted), and a common 

goal existed amongst the participants in the venture: to possess and distribute drugs 

for profit. Although Adams stopped purchasing cocaine base from the supplier

before he started selling cocaine base to Wyatt, Wyatt and the supplier both 

assisted Adams with facilitating drug sales, thereby furthering the venture and 

demonstrating a “common purpose to violate the law.” See United States v. Alred, 

144 F.3d 1405, 1415 (11th Cir. 1998) (“It is irrelevant that particular conspirators 

may not have . . . participated in every stage of the conspiracy; all that the 

government must prove . . . [is a] common purpose to violate the law.”); United 

States v. Richardson, 532 F.3d 1279, 1285 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[I]t is often possible, 

especially with drug conspiracies, to divide a single conspiracy into subagreements.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, the “jury reasonably could have found the existence of a single 

conspiracy with [Adams] as the central hub.” See United States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 

1506, 1518 (11th Cir. 1986). Adams has not shown a material variance from his 

indictment, and his challenge to his conviction fails.

Case: 15-15164 Date Filed: 12/22/2016 Page: 6 of 7 
7

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-15164 Date Filed: 12/22/2016 Page: 7 of 7