Opinion ID: 1189242
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Drug Distribution Conspiracy

Text: After reviewing the evidence presented to the jury, we find that the district court did not err by denying Garcia-Hernandez's motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to his conspiracy conviction. To establish that a defendant conspired to distribute drugs under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must prove: (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. United States v. Rolon-Ramos, 502 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir.2007) (quotation omitted). An agreement to join a conspiracy need not be explicit but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. United States v. Rodriguez-Mendez, 336 F.3d 692, 695 (8th Cir.2003) (internal quotation omitted). Furthermore, evidence of multiple sales of resale quantities of drugs is sufficient in and of itself to make a submissible case of a conspiracy to distribute. United States v. Eneff, 79 F.3d 104, 105 (8th Cir.1996). Additionally, the length of time participants know each other and their established methods of payment may support the existence of a conspiracy. United States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Cir. 2003). Steburg testified that he purchased at least ten pounds of methamphetamine for further distribution from Garcia-Hernandez and his associates over several months. While DeLuna-Ponce sometimes delivered the methamphetamine to Steburg, Steburg testified that he always made the arrangements for those meetings with Garcia-Hernandez. Steburg also testified that he met Garcia-Hernandez at various locations to conduct the drug transactions and, while he usually paid cash for the methamphetamine, Garcia-Hernandez sometimes fronted the methamphetamine to Steburg. When he fronted the methamphetamine to Steburg, Steburg would then sell the drugs to other individuals and repay Garcia-Hernandez with that money. Steburg also testified about the events on the day of Garcia-Hernandez's arrest. Garcia-Hernandez told Steburg at Garcia-Hernandez's trailer that Steburg needed to pay his debt. Garcia-Hernandez then met Steburg at the Jo-Mart Motel where Garcia-Hernandez threatened Steburg with a gun, demanded payment, and instructed DeLuna-Ponce and Rolon-Ramos to prevent Steburg from leaving the room. Garcia-Hernandez also discussed more work he had for Steburg before keeping Steburg's cell phone and letting him leave the room to get the money. Garcia-Hernandez argues that [a]bsent Steburg's questionable testimony, there is not an indictable conspiracy. Appellant's Br. at 10. He contends that Steburg testified falsely to avoid going to prison for his drug dealings. However, in reviewing the denial of a judgment of acquittal, it is not our role to assess Steburg's credibility. See Santana, 524 F.3d at 853. Steburg provided testimony about his involvement in an extensive methamphetamine distribution conspiracy with Garcia-Hernandez and others. The jury assessed Steburg's credibility and quite reasonably determined that a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy existed and that Garcia-Hernandez knowingly participated in it. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Garcia-Hernandez was guilty of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine.