Opinion ID: 195236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conspiracy to Possess and Distribute Marijuana

Text: 17 Next, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for conspiring to distribute marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. 846, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a conspiracy existed, (2) ... the defendant knew of it, and (3) ... he voluntarily participated in it. David, 940 F.2d at 735. A criminal conspiracy is a tacit or explicit agreement to perform an unlawful act or omit one the law requires. United States v. Penagaricano-Soler, 911 F.2d 833, 840 (1st Cir.1990), citing Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777, 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1289-90, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975). The illicit agreement may be established by direct and circumstantial evidence. Batista-Polanco, 927 F.2d at 19. 18 Hahn's claim that the government failed to establish an agreement among him and his confederates is frivolous. The evidence undergirding the CCE conviction alone, see supra at pp. 506-07, was sufficient to support a jury finding that Hahn conspired with at least seven other persons to distribute marijuana. Beyond that, however, Hahn concedes that he was a middleman between Dad Lujan and Mark Heino. Finally, the evidence was not nearly so limited, but demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Hahn was a key conspirator in a large-scale marijuana conspiracy involving many other people.