Opinion ID: 176295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count (1): Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine

Text: Webster contends that his conviction under count (1) was wrongfully based on proof of a mere agreement to sell methamphetamine, in violation of United States v. Lennick, 18 F.3d 814, 819 n. 4 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that a sale of drugs does not establish a conspiracy; rather, the government must show that the buyer and seller had an agreement to further distribute the drug in question). Webster also argues the government failed to prove that he intended to commit the underlying offense. The government points to testimonial evidence showing that Webster was aware of the drug distribution and benefitted from the distribution. Todd and Webster discussed Todd's plan to set up sales operations in Billings, Montana. In addition, Todd allegedly had a little kickback relationship with Webster. Todd explained that, as sales grew, Todd told Webster: You know, I appreciate what you're doing for me. I'm going to go ahead, and I'm going to give you a couple hundred bucks. Also, Webster allegedly pitched in a free extra half-pound of methamphetamine upon Todd's promises to double [Webster's] money. Todd also suggested that Webster personally assisted the downstream distribution. Todd testified that Webster was present when tires were packed with methamphetamine. Webster allegedly drove with Todd from California to Billings, where they removed the spare tire from Todd's father's truck and delivered the tire to a recipient. A reasonable trier of fact could have found Webster guilty of count (1). The testimony and the quantities of drugs sold (up to two pounds at a time) suggest that Webster was aware of the buyer's resale activities, and, thus, implicitly agreed to further distribution of the methamphetamine. Furthermore, Webster financially benefitted from that distribution. The jury was entitled to find that Webster had the required intent.