Opinion ID: 158879
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ms. Williams

Text: 33 Mr. McSwain argues that the jury could not have considered Ms. Williams because the indictment charged Mr. McSwain and Ms. Williams with acting in concert with at least five other persons. Rec. vol. I, doc. 415, at 31 (emphasis added). He argues that to allow consideration of Ms. Williams among the other people would amount to an impermissible constructive amendment of the indictment. We disagree. 34 The indictment does not limit the class of individuals from which the five other persons might be drawn. Therefore, it does not expressly preclude consideration of Ms. Williams with respect to Mr. McSwain. Thus, including Ms. Williams as a CCE supervisee does not constitute a constructive amendment. See United States v. Jones, 801 F.2d 304, 308 (8th Cir. 1986) (affirming two codefendants' convictions on CCE charge and counting second codefendant among those controlled by first codefendant). 35 As to the evidence, Ms. Williams testified that she operated at the direction of Mr. McSwain: [Mr. McSwain] would tell me whether it would be okay to sell piperidine to such and such a person for such and such a price, whether or not I should sell an entire 55-gallon barrel of piperidine to James Williams, and who would make the delivery, how they would make it, and how much they would get paid for it. Rec. vol. V, at 96-97. She testified she was responsible for making entries in the ledger and for communicating with various buyers. See id. at 94-95. She set up a speaker phone system so that Mr. McSwain could communicate with others from prison. See Rec. vol. IV, at 55-56. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Strader testified that, after Mr. McSwain's incarceration, they dealt with Mr. McSwain through Ms. Williams. See Rec. vol. V, at 188, 246. Accordingly, a rational jury could infer that Mr. McSwain had the requisite managerial relationship with her.