## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1592 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. P RI NCE T. B EY, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:08- cr-0046- 1

— Sharon J ohn so n C olem an, Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 3, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 9, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. Pr i nc e Bey appe al s his con

vi cti on f orco n sp i ring to poss ess her oi n w i th i ntent to dist ribute a nd f orai ding and abett in g the di str ibuti on ofher oi n i n viol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) and § 8 46. Bey al l ege s three e rror s o n appeal : fi rs t, thatthe dist r i c t c o ur t e r r e d b y no t i ns t r uc t i ng the j ur y o n an e nt r a pm en t d efe n se ; sec on d , th at th er e w as ins u fficie n t e vidence ofco nspir acy to al l ow the adm i ssi on into evi dence2 N o. 12

- 1592

o fo ut
- o f

- co ur t st at ements m ade byhi s al l eg ed co - co ns p i r a to r u n d er th e c o-c on sp ira to r ex c lu sio n from th e ru le ag ains t he ar say; a nd thi r d, tha t th er e was i ns uffi ci en t evi dence to support hi s co nvi cti on f ort he co nspir acy offense. W e ar e not persuaded by any o fthes e a rgum ents.

I. E ntra pm ent D efense W e c an d isp e n s e w ith th e e n tr ap m en t is su e q u ick ly bef or e turni ng to the f acts of the case . Be y w as charge d f orhi s invol vem ent in a he ro i n tr an sa c tio n i n w hi ch th e b u ye r w as a go ve rn m en t in for m an t. B efo re tria l, Beys ug g es te d tha t he pl anne d t o rai se ane nt r apment defe nse a nd subm i tte d tw o propos ed j ury i nstr ucti ons on th e defen se. Ent r apmento cc ur s when th e g o ve r nm en t i nduc es a p erso n t o c o m m i t ano ffen se a nd he l ac k ed th e predi sposi ti on t o do so witho ut the i nd ucem ent. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Plo wm an , 700 F.3d 105 2, 1057(7 t h C ir. 2012 ) ; se e a l so M a thew s v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 48 5 U.S
. 58 , 62

- 63 ( 19 88)
. Dur i ngt r i al, ho wev er, Be y aba ndo ne d the e ntr apmentde fen se . At s ev er alpo i nt s dur ing th e g o ve r nm ent’ s p re sentati on o fi ts case , the dist ri ct j ud ge prohibi ted the go ver nm ent fro m pre senting ev i dence of Bey’ s pre dispos i ti on t o i nvol vem ent in the tr ansac tion because Bey had not yet put on an entr apm ent defense. A fterthe gov er nm ent r est ed i ts case, B ey chose to r est w i thout rai si ng an entr apm ent defense: Bey did not te st i fy, he c al l ed no wi tne ss es , a nd hi s co uns elwi th

drew his propos ed entr apm ent instr ucti ons. A ccor dingl y, th e di s t r i c t j ud g e f o l l o we d Be y ’ s de c i s i o n a nd neve r i nstr ucted the j ury on the ent ra pm ent defense.N o. 12

- 1592 3 This i s about as cl eara r ec ord ofwaive r as one can i m agine. Bey w ai ved the entr apm ent defe nse and ca n n ot ar gue o n appeal thatthe j ud ge shoul d have g i ven the e ntra pm ent instr ucti on. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wal t on , 25 5 F .3d 43 7, 4 4 1 (7t h C ir. 20 01 ) (“a w aiv ed iss u e is unrevi ew abl e be cause a va lid w ai verl eave s no er ro r to co r r ec t an d e xt i ng ui sh es a l la ppel l at e r ev i ew o fthe issue”)
. In the c o nt ex t o fa ppel l at e ch al l en g es t o j ury i nstr ucti ons, we have he l d that a defendant w ai ves an o bj ec ti o n t o j ur y i ns truct i o ns whenhe “ap pr o ve d o fthe i nstr ucti ons a t i ssue. ” S ee U nite d State s v. D iSantis , 56 5 F. 3d 3 54, 36 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v. P ree, 40 8 F. 3d 855, 87 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. The sa m e l ogi c appl i es w h en a p ar ty ap p ro ve s no t givin g an in s t ru c tio n . E.g
. , U ni t e d St at e s v. Ewings , 936 F
. 2d 903, 90 8- 09 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) ( fi nd i n g w aive r ofo bj ecti on t o j ury i nstr ucti ons because de fense ask ed j ud ge not to gi ve i nstr ucti on)
. H er e, Bey co nsi dered an entr apm ent defen se , l ai d som e o f the g ro und w or k fori t o utsi de the h ea ring o fthe j ury, an d th en wi th dr ew hi s o wn pr o po se d en tr apmenti ns t r u c t i o n . H e w a i v e d th e i s s u e f o r ap p e l l a t e r e v i e w. We now tur n to the conspi ra cy i ssues .
II. The C o nsp ira cy Issues A
. Fac t ual an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d 1. The He r oi n Trans ac t i on I n the f al lo f2 006, the F BIb ec ame int er es te d i n a dr ug deal ernam ed Vernel lH em phil l

. The FBIwanted to use a confi denti ali nfo rm ant who w ent b y the nam e “ Ch ub” to bust Hem phil lf orse l l i ng drugs , but th er e was a prob-4 N o. 12

- 1592 lem . Th ou gh C h u b w as fam iliar w ith H em p h ill, h e d id n o t k n ow h im w ell en ou gh to arr an ge a d ea l. T h is is wher e Beyc ame in. Be y was fr i en ds wi th Chub , a nd Chu b knew that Bey had previ ousl y b ought coca i ne fro m H em p h i l l

. Overse ver alweeks, Chub used B ey to ar ra nge th e p u rc h as e o f 10 0 g ra m s o fh er oin from H em p h ill. ( Because the co ns p iracy offense re quir es proo fo fan agr eem ent t o com m i t a cr i m e with so m eone o therthan a g ove rnm en t in for m ant, l i ke Ch ub, the f ocus i s o n w hetherthe evi dence shows thatBey consp ire d w i th H em p h ill to se ll d ru gs to C h u b .) M any o fthe com m un ica ti ons between Chu b and Bey w er e re c o r d e d , an d th os e re c or d in gs p ro vid e a fairly cl ea r c hr o no l o g y o fe ve nt s. On October 25, 2 00 6 Chub ca l l ed Beyt o t el lhi m tha t he was “ th i nk i n’ abo uto p eni n’ up . . . a l i ne ” an d a sk ed Chub if h e kne w ofa ny o ne se l l i ngg o o d he r o i n. Be y r es po nde d “ wel ll et ’ s d o i t” a nd tol d C hub that he kne w H em p h i l lso l d high qual i ty hero i n. Chub then ask ed Bey if h e knew how m uch H emphi l lc ha r g ed. Be y r es pond ed, “ Ido n’ t k no w, b ut Ico uld fi nd o ut, Ican, Ican fin d a ll t h at o ut f oryo u i m m edi ate l y. ” Beythe n wen t to t al kwi thHem phi l l

. Acco r di ng to B ey ’s s ign ed w rit te n st at em en t m ad e a f t e r h is ar re st

— th e a d m iss ion of w h ich h as n otbe en ch all enged — B e y n ex t w en t t o a st or e w h er e H em p h ill w or ked and tol d H em phil lthatChub w as i nter est ed i n buyi ng her oi n. A t thi s m eet i ng H em phil lexpre sse d re ser vati ons ab ou t deal i ng with Ch ub beca use he had he a r d tha t Ch ub wo r k e d f o r the g o v e r nme nt
. BeyN o. 12

- 1592 5

as su r ed H emphi l ltha t Chub was no t a g o ve r nm en t i nfo rm ant, an d h is re assurance appears to have sat i sfi ed H em phill, w h o then quote d a pri ce o f$7, 500 f or 100 gr am s o fher oi n. Bey re l aye d thi s info rm atio n to Ch ub on Novem ber3, 20 06. On N ove m ber8, 20 06, Chub called B ey to tel lhi m that he was ge tting r eady t o do the deal and t h at h e needed Bey“ to t ak e ca r e o fe ve r y th i ng . ” On th e s ame c al l, Chub tol d Bey thathe woul d gi ve hi m “a st ack” ( $1, 000) for h elp in g t o a rra n ge th e d ea l. T he de al occu rred on N ovem ber 17, 2006

. Th at afternoon Beycal l ed Chub and to l d him thatH em phil lwas re ady to do the deal

. A fter p ick ing up another m an f orsom e m uscl e, Chub p i cked up Bey a nd theydro ve to the c l o th i ngs to r e wher e H emphi l lwor k ed. Be y i ntr od u c ed C h u b t o H em p h ill, an d C h u b an d H em p h ill w ent into a ba ck ro om to co unt the m oney . The m on ey ad d ed up , and H em p hillgave C hu b th e h eroin in return f orthe m oney . H em phil lte sti fied a t tri althathe then pai d Be y a $2 00 o r $3 00 fi nde r ’ s fee f o r hi s wor ki n s et ting up the tran sac t ion. B ey, C hu b, an d the m us cle then l eft the s t o r e a nd r e t urne d t o thei r r e s pe c t i v e h o mes . On th ei r wayhome, Bey as k ed Chub t o “ Gi m m e fi ve , ” m ea ni ng $5 00 dol l ar s, and Chu b r esponded that he would pay h im lat er . A t t ria l, H em p h ill also te st ified th at h e w ou ld not have done the deal i fBey had not v ouched f orChub.

2. The Trial Befo re tr i al, the gov er nm ent m ade a S a n t i ago proffer to adm i t s tat em ents ofBey’ s a l l ege d co- con sp ira tor6 N o. 12

- 1592 H em p hill

. U nd er San t i ago , a di s t r i c tj ud g e ma y de c i de b e f o r e t r i a l t o a dmi t c o - c o ns pi r a t o r t e s t i mon y b a sed o n th e g ov er n m en t’s p ro ffe r th at it h as su fficie n t e viden ce t o pr o ve the e xi st en ce o fa c ons p ira cyb y a pr epo nderanc e of the ev i dence attr i al

. S ee U nite d State s v. Santiago , 58 2 F. 2d 1128 , 11 30- 31 ( 7th Ci r. 19 78) , o ver rul ed on othe r gr ounds by B o urja ilyv . U nited Sta tes , 48 3 U.S
. 17 1 ( 1987 )
. Thi s pro cedure hel ps str eam l i ne trial s byper m i ttin g t h e g ov er n m en t t o in tr od u c e c o-c on sp ira to r te st im o ny at a ny poi ntdur i ngthe t r i alr athe r tha n wai ting unti lafteri t has pro vi ded suffi ci ent ind ependent proo f ofco nspir acy. H em phil l ’ s o ut- of

- cour t s tat em ents i nclu d ed conve rs ati o ns b etw een Hem phi l la nd Be y abo utthe pr i ce o fthe he r o i n a nd c o nver sa ti o ns tha t H emphi l lha d wi thChub du ring the de al

. To e st ab l i shthe e xi st en ce o fa c o nspi r ac y b etwee n Be y a nd Hemphi l l, a t tr i al th e g o ve r nm ent r el i ed on Bey’ s wri tte n sta tem ent, th e reco rded c on ve rs a t ion s, an d H em p h ill’s tr ial te st im on y. T h is evi dence show ed that Bey r eco m m ended H em phil lto Ch ub as a he ro in s up pli er, thatBey vouched f orChub, that Bey r el aye d the pri ce b etween H em p hi l land Chu b, and that Hem phil lpai d Bey a fi nd er ’ s fee. Fol l owing the pr ese ntati on o ft h e gov er nm ent’ s ca se, Bey m o ve d f o r a di r ec te d ve r di ct unde r Rul e 29, ar g ui ng that th e go ver nm ent f ai l ed to pro ve the e xi ste nce o fan ag reem ent b etween H em phil land Bey — a nec essary el emento fthe c o ns pi r ac y o ffen se . The j udg e d en i ed th e m otion an d all ow ed the ca se to go to the j ury. Th e j ury co nv i ct ed Beyo fc o ns pi ring t o di st r ibut e he r o i n a ndN o. 12

- 1592 7 ai di nga nd abe tt i ngthe di st rib ut i o n o fhe r o i n, a nd the j udg e se nt en ce d hi m t o 1 10 months i n pr i so n.

B
. A nalysis Beya r g ue s fi r sttha t th e di st r i ctj udg e er r ed i n a l l o wi ng th e go v ernm en t to i nt rod uc e H em p hill ’s out-of- cou rt s t a t e men t s b e c a us e the g o v e r nme ntfa i l e d t o p r o v i de su fficie n t e vid en c e o f a c on sp ira c y b e t w e en H em p h ill and Bey. S eco nd , Bey ar gues that eve n w i th the se sta tem en ts th er e w as ins u fficie n t e vid en c e t o s u p p or t h is co ns pi r ac y c o nv i ct i o n. W e ta k e ea cha r g um en t i n tur n.

1. A dm is si bil ity of Co-conspirat or St atem ents B ey ar g ue s th atthe di st r i ctj udg e er r ed i n a l l o wi ngthe g o v e r nme ntt o i nt r o du c e o ut
- o f

- c o ur ts t a t e men t s ma de by hi s a l l ege d co- conspi ra tor, Vern ell H em phil l, bec ause th er e wa s i n s u ffi c i e n te v i d e n c e t o e s t ab l i s h th e e xi ste nce o fa conspi ra cy between H em phil land Bey. O rd inari l y o ut- of

- c ourtst ate m ents i ntro du ced i nto evi dence to pr o ve the t r uth o fthe ir con te nt s ar e ba r r ed bythe p rohibition against hears ay. See Fed

. R
. E vid. 802. O ut -of

cou rt statem en ts m ad e by a co -c ons p irator, how ever, ar e not hea r sa y i fthe s ta te m en ts wer e “made b y the par ty ’ s co - co ns pi r at o r dur i nga nd i n fur th er an ce o fthe c o ns pi r a c y . ” F e d. R
. Ev i d. 8 0 1 ( d) ( 2 ) ( E)
. T o e s t ab l i s h a dm issibili ty, th e govern m en t m us t show by a prep ond erance o fthe ev i dence thata conspi ra cy exi ste d between the defendant and the d ec lar ant a nd thatthe sta tem ents w er e m ade i n further ance o fthe conspi ra cy. S ee U nited8 N o. 12

- 1592

W e s ay a r gu a bl y be c a us e m uc h of wha t Hemphi l l s a i d as 1 the dr ug t r a ns a c t i onwa s h a ppe ni ngwou l d n oth a ve be en statem en ts offered f or their tru th, a n d t h o se tha t w ere w ou ld p ro b ab ly fit un d er t h e p resen t sense im p ression excep tion to th e r u le ag a in st h ea rs a y . Se e F ed . R . E v id . 80 3 (1 ); U n i te d S ta te s v . R u iz , 24 9 F .3d 64 3 , 64 6 (7t h C ir . 20 0 1 ). Sta tes v. C ruz -R ea , 6 2 6 F
. 3 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 )
. An u n law fu l c o n sp ira c y e x ist s w h en tw o or m or e p eo p le ag r ee to co m m i t an unl awful ac t, an d the defen dan t “kno w i ngl y and intenti onal l y” j oi ns i n th e agr eem ent. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 592 F.3d 749 , 754 (7th C ir. 2010 )
. W e ul ti m ately fi nd ther e was suffi ci ent e vi dence ofco nspir acy to adm i t the st ate m ents. Beydo es no t di r ec t us t o sp ecifi c st at ement s th athe conte nd s were i m proper l y a dm i tte d, an o m iss i on that w e m ight treat as a w aiver of th e issue. T o be on th e safe si de, tho ug h, w e ha ve done an i nde pen den t r ev i ew o fthe re c or d th at rev ea ls on ly on e c on ve rs at io n t h at co u ld ar guably b e hears ay. The m aj or i ty ofH em phil l ’ s s tat em ents w er e no t hea rs ay: A ny ac counts provi ded by Be y o fc o nv e r s a t i o ns h e h a d wi th He mphi l l w er e a dm i ss ibl e unde r the pa r tya dm i ss i o n e xc l us i o n, s ee F ed. R. Evi d. 8 01 ( d) ( 2) ( A), and Hem phi l l ’ s i n- co ur t te st i m o ny w as n ot h ear saybec ause i t was pro vi ded i n open co urt. T he o n ly statem en ts m ad e by H em p hillthat w ere ar guably hea rs ay occur re d i n a rec or ded co nver sat i on b et w ee n C h u b an d H em p h ill d es c rib in g t h e d ea l as it wa s ha pp e ning . Th i s r e c o r di ng i nc l ud e d a de s c r i p- 1 ti on ofHem phi l lc o unt i ngthe mone y a nd Hemphi l la nd Chub di sc us singdo i ngb us i ne ss a g ain in the futur e, b utN o. 12

- 1592 9 th e co nv er sa ti o n i ts el fdi d not i m pl i ca te Be y i n a c o nspi ra cy. H em phil lm ade no dir ect ori nd i re ct refere nce to Be y o r Bey’s role i n the t r an sa ct i o n dur i ngthe c o nve r sa ti o n. Because thi s a dm itt ed co nver sat i on di d not i m pli cate Bey i n the al l ege d conspi ra cy, we see no p os sibi l i ty th at th er e w as an y e rro r, let a lon e p rej u d icia l err or , in admi tti ng a ny e vi den ce unde r the c o - co ns pi r at o r e xc l usi o n t o the h earsay r ul e. M o r eo ve r, a s di sc us se d i n the n ex t s ecti on, ther e was suffi ci ent e vi dence ofco nspir acy t o p e r mi tth e e v i d e n c e t o b e a d mi t t e d u n d e r th e c o - co nspi r at o r e xc l us i o n.

2. Suffi cie ncy of the Evidence W e t u rn n ow to whether ther e was suffi ci ent e vi dence to su p p or t B ey ’s c on s p ira c y c on vic tio n . W e re vie w ch all enges to the suffi ci ency ofthe evi dence defer enti al l y. W e w il lo ver turn a co nvi cti on f ori nsuffi ci ent e vi dence onl y i f, aftervi ew i ng al lo fthe evi dence i n the l i ght m ost f avo rabl e t o the pr ose cuti on, no ra ti onalt rie r off act c o u l d h a v e f o u n d th e e s s e n t i a le l e m e n t s o fth e c r i me beyo nd a re aso nabl e d oubt. S ee Jackson v. Virgini a , 443 U
. S. 30 7, 3 1 9 (19 77 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Khat t ab , 53 6 F
. 3d 765, 76 9 ( 7th Ci r. 2008)
. W hen a go ver nm ent a gent

— l i ke Ch ub

— i s invol ved i n the tr ansact i on, a c onspi ra cy convi cti on re quir es proo fthat t he defendant conspi re d w i th som eone o therthan t he go ver nm ent a gent. S ee U nited St at e s v. Cors on , 579 F.3d 80 4, 8 1 1 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). Th is m eans that Bey ca nnot h ave conspi re d w i th Chub as a mat t e r o fl a w, s o the i s s ue h e r e i s wh e the r the r e was10 N o. 12

- 1592 suffi ci ent e vi dence to fi nd thatBey conspi re d w i th H em phil lto se l lthe hero i n to Chub. T h e gov er nm ent’ s e vi dence ofa conspi ra cy between Bey and H em phil lwas not ove rwh elm in g, but i t was e n o u g h

. T h e c l e a r e s te v i d e n c e wa s He mph i l l ’ s t e s t i m o ny th athe pa i d Be y a sh ar e o fhi s ta k e f o r b r i ng i ngChub to t h e d ea l. T h is e vid en c e o f p ay m en t b y H em p h ill, com bined w ith th e evide nc e tha t show ed Be y had pu rchased drugs fro m H em phil l i n the past, re l aye d p ri ce and quantity i nfo rm ati on be tw een Hem phil land Chu b, att ended the tr ansact i on, and re ass ured H em phil lthat Ch ub w as tr ustw or thy, wa s en ou gh to al l ow a r easona b l e t ri ero ff act to fi nd noto nl y that Bey agr eed to hel p Ch ub buy the heroin , for w hi ch he c oul d not be co nv i ct ed, b uta l so tha t he kn o wi ng l y a nd i nt en ti o na l l y ag r ee d w i thHem phi l lt o he l p hi m s el lthe he r o i n. To pr o v e th e e x i s t e n c e o fa c o n s p i r a c y, th e g o ve r nm ent m ust show that Bey “kno w i ngl y an d i ntenti onal l y” j oi ned i n an ag re em ent w i th anothe r perso n to com m i t a n unlawfulact. Johns on , 592 F.3d at75 4; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Roll i ns , 54 4 F
. 3d 820, 83 5 ( 7th C ir. 2008)
. Depend i ng o n the s peci fi c ci rcum sta nces, a perso n w ho acts as a m i dd l emano r b ro ker for a dr ugde a lb e t we e n a b uy e r a nd a se ller c an c on sp ire w ith th e bu ye r, th e s elle r, or b ot h

. E.g
. , U nite d S ta tes v. G ilm er, 53 4 F
. 3d 696, 70 2- 03 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) (m id d lem an co n sp ire d w ith se ller); U ni t e d S t at e s Le ch uga , 994 F. 2d 346, 35 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) (e n banc) ( plur al i ty opi ni on) ( m i dd l em an co nspir ed w i th se l l erto di str ibute d r ug s)
. Butno t al lmiddl emen co ns pi r e wi thb o ththe buyerand the sel l er . S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tho m as , 28 4N o. 12

- 1592 11 F
. 3d 74 6, 7 53 , 7 56 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2) (fi ndi ngi ns uffi ci en t evi dence thatdefendant w ho br oke re d fo ur s pot sales ofcr ack between buyerand sel l er s co nspir ed w i th b u ye r); Un i t e d S t a t e s v . C o n t r e r as , 2 49 F. 3d 595, 59 9- 600 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( i nsu ffici ent e vi dence ofco nspir acy b et w ee n d efe n d an t a n d m id d l e m a n be c au se rec or d d id no t r ev ea lmiddl eman ha d “ st ak e i n the s ucc ess” ofthe op eration). I n a c as e, l i k e th i s o ne , i n whi cha g o ve r nm en t i nfo rm ant br i ngs a m i dd l em an to the deal, we m ust m ake sure tha t the r e i s a n e v i de nt i a r y b a s i s f o r the j ur y t o concl ud e be yond a re aso nabl e doubt that the m i dd l em an had an a gr eem ent with the sel l erto di str ibute dr ugs i n a ddi ti o n t o the a g r ee m en t t o hel p the i nf o r m an t buy dr ug s . I ti s i mpo r t a ntt o p a y a t t e nt i o n t o the r o l e p l aye d by eac h p articipan t in the tran sact ion so as not to tu rn th e con sp iracy offen se into “a sim p le su bstitu te for a drug di str ibu ti on co nvi cti on. ” U nited Sta tes v. R ivera , 27 3 F.3d 751 , 756 (7th C ir. 2001). Evi den ce tha t th e m i ddl eman had a c l ea r s ta k e i n the sell er ’s sale s i s typi cal l y s uffi ci ent t o perm i t the j ury to i nfe r the exi ste nce of an agr eem ent w i th the sell er . S ee U nit e d S t at e s v. Col on , 5 49 F
. 3d 56 5, 5 68

- 70 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 ) ( r ec o g ni zingthe f o l l o wi nga s evi d ence tha t di st i ng ui s he s a c o ns pi r a c y fr o m a b uy e r - s e l l e r r e l a t i o ns hi p: sa l es o n c r edi t, a g r ee m en t t o l o o kf o r c us to m er s, pa y m en t of c om m iss ion, pr ovis i on o fsignificant bu siness ad vice); cf. Cont r e r as , 2 49 F
. 3d at6 00 ( i ns uffi ci en t ev i d en ce o fc o nsp iracy betw een a dru g s e ller and a m idd lem anw he re ther e was no evi dence thatthe m i dd l em an “h ad a sta ke”12 N o. 12

- 1592 i n the sel l er ’ s s al es)
. In the absen ce o fev i dence ofan e xp l i c i t a g r e e men t, s uc h e v i de nc e pr o v i de s the j ur y with a ba si s forchoo si ng the i nfe re nce that the m i dd l em an ha d a n a ddi ti o na la g r ee m en t wi ththe s el l ero ve r the co m pet i ngi nfer en ce tha t th e m i ddl eman was work i ng w ith on ly t h e info rm an t b u ye r. C f. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l l i a ms , 59 2 F
. 3d 7 49, 75 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( “I n thi s s i tuatio n, th e e vid en c e is es se n t i a l l y in eq u ip ois e; th e p lau sibil ity ofeach i nfer e n ce is abou t the sam e, so the j ury ne c essari l y would have to ente rt ai n a r eas onabl e doubt on the co nspir acy charge.”)

. Because the j ury w as prese n t e d w ith su c h ev id en c e h er e, it h ad an ad eq u at e b as is to co n c lu d e t h at B ey h ad an ag re em en t w ith H em p h ill. H em phil lte sti fi ed that he p aid Bey a fi nd er ’ s fee f or hi s hel p i n a rrangingthe sal e. Thi s t est i m ony, wh en pai r ed wi ththe ex ten si ve e vi den ce tha t Beywas a ct i ng as a m i dd l em an betw een Hem phil land Chu b, pro vi ded the ne cess ar y s up port fo r th e infe re nce that Bey agr eed to hel p H em phil lse l lher oi n. The f act ofpaym ent pr ovi ded pro bati ve evi dence thatBe y h ad a shar ed sta ke i n H em phil l ’ s s al e a nd al l owed the othe r evi dence prese n te d by th e g ov er n m en t t o b e re a d i n a re as on ab le m anner consi ste nt with a co nspira c y b etween Bey an d H em phil l

. W i th the ev i dence ofpaym ent, i t was r e a s o nab l e f o r the j ur y t o i nfe r tha tBe y r e c om m ended H em phil lto Chub and hel ped org ani ze the dealnotj ust b e c a us e Ch ub a s ked hi m t o b utb e c a us e h e a l s o h a d a separ ate ag re em ent with H em p h ill t o hel p prom ote H em ph ill’s drug di str ibuti on e nter pri se. In other w or ds, Bey was a bro kerworking f orbo th si des.N o. 12

- 1592 13 Thi s ev i den ce o fa g r ee m en t to c o m m i t th e unl awful a c t of he roin distribu tion is su ffici en t to sup p ort Be y’s c on sp ira c y c on vi c tio n . A lth ou gh B ey su gg es ts th at h is r o l e i n the t r a ns a c t i o n wa s t o o mi ni mal t o s upporta co ns pi r ac y c o nv i ct i o n b ec au se he d i d no t dec i de th e pr i ce , qua nt i ty, or o th ert er m s o fthe t r an sa ct i o n, the conspi ra cy offense does not re quire such hi gh- l eve l parti ci pati on. S ee U nite d State s v. G arci a , 45 F. 3d 196, 19 8- 99 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) ( affi r m i ngc o nv i ction ofmiddl eman who d id n ot set th e price, qu an tity, or term s of tran sact ion). The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

7- 9- 13