Opinion ID: 162640
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Overholt Challenge.

Text: 106 Overholt argues that his conspiracy conviction must be overturned because there was insufficient evidence to prove he knew of the conspiracy's alleged common goal or objective. Stating that [t]he conspiracy's goal was to receive payment from the federal government for services that Allied did not render properly, Br. at 20, he asserts that he was unaware of Allied's specific contractual obligations to the government and hence could not have had the goal of defrauding the United States by illegally disposing of the waste. His only interest, he asserts, was to make a profit by transporting the waste wherever Allied instructed. This argument, however, relates to only the fraud objects of the alleged conspiracy. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the objects of violating the SDWA or RCRA. Therefore, we need not consider the argument's merits. See McNutt, 908 F.2d at 565. 107