Opinion ID: 4556811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Next, Overton argues the evidence was insufficient to prove “either that [he] conspired, or that [he] conspired to distribute at least 100 grams of heroin.” “We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo,” viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and reversing “only if no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” See United States v. Conway, 754 F.3d 580, 587 (8th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). We conclude that, based on the evidence described above, a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt “(1) that there was a conspiracy, i.e., an agreement to distribute the drugs; (2) that the defendant knew of the conspiracy; and (3) that the defendant intentionally joined the conspiracy.” Id. (cleaned up). A reasonable jury could also have found that at least 100 grams of heroin was reasonably foreseeable to Overton and within the scope of the conspiracy. See United States v. Jimenez-Villasenor, 270 F.3d 554, 561 (8th Cir. 2001). Smith testified that Overton set up an arrangement for at least 100 grams of heroin. Smith also testified that, to get a price of $65 a gram, it would be necessary to purchase approximately 500 grams to 1,000 grams of heroin. Smith further stated that Overton was present -11- while heroin was packaged at Kearnice’s residence. Officers later found approximately 600 grams of heroin buried in the backyard of that residence. Agent Bump testified that this may be the largest quantity of heroin that has “ever been found at one location in the Quad Cities.” This evidence was sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to conclude that at least 100 grams of heroin was within the scope of the conspiracy and that Overton could have reasonably foreseen the extent of the conspiracy. See United States v. Foxx, 544 F.3d 943, 951 (8th Cir. 2008).