Opinion ID: 422286
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Agreement to accomplish an illegal objective;

Text: 43 2. Coupled with one or more overt acts in furtherance of the illegal purpose; and 44 3. The requisite intent to commit the substantive offense. 45 United States v. Melchor-Lopez, 627 F.2d 886 (9th Cir.1980). 46 It is hornbook law that when knowledge of a fact is required to convict for a substantive offense, knowledge is also required to convict for conspiracy to commit the substantive offense. Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672, 678, 79 S.Ct. 1314, 1319, 3 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1969); United States v. Eaglin, 571 F.2d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.1977); United States v. Bekowies, 432 F.2d 8, 14 (9th Cir.1970). Conspiracy to commit a particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense itself. Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. at 678, 79 S.Ct. at 1319. 47 What we have said concerning the insufficiency of the evidence as to counts II through VI is also dispositive of the conspiracy count. The government's failure to present evidence as to the appellants specific intent to violate the underlying substantive count requires us to set aside the convictions premised upon 18 U.S.C. § 371.