Opinion ID: 761082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 23 Harper appeals the district court's denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal for insufficiency of the evidence. In considering this claim, we review the record de novo, United States v. Chavez-Palacios, 30 F.3d 1290, 1294 (10th Cir.1994), viewing the direct and circumstantial evidence, along with reasonable inferences therefrom, ... in a light most favorable to the government, United States v. Mains, 33 F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir.1994). We will uphold the denial of a motion for acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 24 Harper argues that there was insufficient evidence to show that he conspired to possess the five pounds of methamphetamine he was carrying when he was arrested. In the alternative, he argues that even if he conspired with Mr. Lee, he did not conspire with any of the other defendants because his activities were not interdependent with theirs. The elements of conspiracy are (1) agreement with another person to violate the law; (2) knowledge of the essential objectives of the conspiracy; (3) knowing and voluntary involvement; and (4) interdependence among the alleged coconspirators. United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 430 (10th Cir.1995). The government need not provide direct evidence of agreement, because a jury may infer an agreement constituting a conspiracy from the acts of the parties and other circumstantial evidence indicating concert of action for the accomplishment of a common purpose. United States v. Bell, 154 F.3d 1205, 1208 (10th Cir.1998). 25 There is abundant evidence that, at the very least, Harper conspired with Lee to possess and distribute the five pounds in his luggage. They were arrested together in a train station, traveling together on a route identified by the DEA as a possible drug distribution route. Each was carrying a canister of pepper spray. Baxter Jones testified that the two were drug partners, that they had supplied him with between four and ten pounds of methamphetamine, and that Lee lived with Harper when Harper was selling Jones drugs. Melanie Young testified that Harper had introduced her to Lee, that Harper and Lee had lived together for a time, and that both Harper and Lee dealt drugs. On these facts, the jury reasonably concluded that Harper and Lee knowingly agreed to possess the five pounds in Harper's luggage and that they intended to distribute it. 26 Harper argues that even if he did conspire with Lee as to the five pounds, there is no evidence that he conspired with other persons named in the indictment, and his activities were not interdependent with theirs. We disagree. Interdependence exists where each coconspirator[']s activities constituted essential and integral steps toward the realization of a common, illicit goal. Edwards, 69 F.3d at 432. Harper's activities were an integral part of the conspiracy charged. Baxter Jones testified that he and Alfred Ellick expected to get a portion of the five pounds confiscated from Harper. He testified that Young introduced him to Harper because both sold drugs. Clark named Harper, Lee, Ellick, and Marshall as the persons whom Vera referred to as big money, and testified that Vera mentioned looking forward to resuming dealings with Harper when Harper got out of jail. Jones testified that Bryant Marshall was Lee and Harper's flunky, and that when Jones dealt with Harper, Marshall was just always there, always around. Tr. at 256-57. He further testified that Young gave him rides to pick up drugs from Harper. He characterized Harper as the brains of the group. Tr. at 260. This evidence was sufficient to show that Harper dealt directly with Ellick, Marshall, Young, Vera, and Clark, as well as with Lee. The jury could reasonably conclude that Vera (with the aid of Clark) supplied drugs to Harper, who, with the aid of Young and Marshall, sold them to Ellick and Jones, among others. 27 Furthermore, even though there was little or no evidence at trial of direct dealings between Harper and McCoy, Altamirano, Sanchez, and Brown, Harper was shown to be part of one branch of what he must have known to be an extensive operation with multiple branches. Where large quantities of narcotics are being distributed, each major buyer may be presumed to know that he is part of a wide-ranging venture, the success of which depends on performance by others whose identity he may not even know. United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1340 (10th Cir.1979). On the facts here, a jury could reasonably conclude that Harper's handling of large quantities of methamphetamine was essential to the large-scale operation run by Vera and Altamirano, which included all the persons named in Count I of the indictment. 28