Opinion ID: 2808321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adame and Gutierrez

Text: On appeal, Adame and Gutierrez contend the district court erred in denying their motions for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. We review such a denial de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the government, resolving conflicts in the government's favor, and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the verdict. United States v. Slagg, 651 F.3d 832, 839 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). We will reverse only if no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (internal quotation omitted). -8-
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. Id. at 840 (quotation omitted). An agreement to join a conspiracy need not be explicit but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. Id. (quotation omitted). On appeal, neither Adame nor Gutierrez seriously contends that the government failed to sufficiently prove that they each conspired with others to distribute over 500 grams of methamphetamine in the Marshalltown area. They instead argue that, although the indictment charges a single conspiracy, the government's evidence conclusively proved the existence of two separate conspiracies, thereby creating a variance. A variance between an indictment and the [g]overnment's proof at trial occurs if the [g]overnment proves multiple conspiracies under an indictment alleging only a single conspiracy. United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). Whether trial evidence established a single conspiracy is determined by the totality of the circumstances, including consideration of the nature and location of activities and events, identities of the co-conspirators, and the time frame in which the acts occurred. Id. at 1123 (internal quotation omitted). This is a factual determination which we review for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. United States v. Benford, 360 F.3d 913, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). If a variance is established, reversal is warranted only if the variance infringed a defendant's substantial rights. Slagg, 651 F.3d at 842 (internal quotation omitted). Adame and Gutierrez assert that Mendiola, Gutierrez and Forbes formed their own separate distribution conspiracy after Mendiola supposedly defected from Adame's operation. Adame and Gutierrez further contend that the government's evidence shows, at most, that members of their operation engaged in individual buy- -9- sell deals during 2012 but that there was no concrete, interlocked interest between the organizations. Having closely reviewed the record, we conclude that a reasonable jury could infer a single conspiracy from the totality of the circumstances presented at trial. Id. Although Gutierrez and Mendiola apparently engaged in some independent distribution activities and competed with Adame's operation, these factors do not conclusively prove the existence of two conspiracies. Id. (holding that a single conspiracy may exist despite the involvement of multiple groups and the performance of separate acts [and that dealers] who compete with one another may be members of the same conspiracy. (internal quotations omitted)). Here, the record establishes that Adame, Gutierrez and Mendiola engaged in the same activity (largescale distribution of methamphetamine) in the same area (Marshalltown) during the time frame alleged in the indictment. Id. Further the government presented evidence that high-level members of Adame's and Gutierrez's groups made numerous distribution-quantity sales of methamphetamine to or with one another. This evidence suggests substantial interdependence and facilitative cooperation between the two groups and amply supports a finding that the members of both groups were engaged in a tacit agreement to distribute [drugs] on an ongoing basis and thus were engaged in a common enterprise. Id. at 841 (internal quotation omitted); see United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 530 F.3d 657, 661 (8th Cir. 2008) ([E]vidence of multiple sales of resale quantities of drugs is sufficient in and of itself to make a submissible case of a conspiracy to distribute. (quotation omitted)); United States v. Donnell, 596 F.3d 913, 925 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that evidence is sufficient to support a conspiracy where the drugs were purchased for resale because a reasonable jury could find that the participants shared a conspiratorial purpose to advance other transfers (quotations omitted)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the government's evidence supported only a finding of multiple conspiracies. -10- However, even if a variance occurred, Adame and Gutierrez have failed to establish that the variance infringed upon their substantial rights. Substantial rights are affected when a defendant is prejudiced by a spillover of evidence from one conspiracy to another or could not reasonably have anticipated from the indictment the evidence to be presented against him. McCauley, 715 F.3d at 1125 (internal quotations omitted). Adame and Gutierrez both argue that they were prejudiced by spillover evidence from one another's separate conspiracies. Assuming the existence of two conspiracies, the government still presented substantial evidence that Mendiola was a member of Adame's distribution conspiracy until December 2011 and that in 2012 Adame sold distribution quantities of methamphetamine to members of Mendiola and Gutierrez's group on multiple occasions. See Garcia-Hernandez, 530 F.3d at 661. Further, there is evidence that around August 2012 Gutierrez supplied methamphetamine to Adame and that Gutierrez and Adame jointly sold a distributionquantity of methamphetamine to a third party. See id. The government's evidence thus sufficiently established that Adame and Gutierrez participated in both conspiracies that allegedly were proved at trial. In a case where the evidence shows that the defendant was a member of each proven conspiracy, the danger of prejudicial spillover is minimal, if non-existent. United States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707, 720 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). Furthermore, the district court gave the jury the Eighth Circuit Model Jury Instruction on single versus multiple conspiracies, which provided strong protection against prejudice from any spillover evidence. United States v. Barth, 424 F.3d 752, 760 (8th Cir. 2005); see Eighth Circuit Manual of Model Jury Instructions–Criminal § 506B (2014 Ed.). Accordingly, Adame and Gutierrez have failed to establish that they were prejudiced by the supposed variance.
We also conclude there was sufficient evidence to support Adame's conviction on the methamphetamine distribution count. In order to obtain a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1), the government was required to prove that Adame knowingly and -11- intentionally distributed 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1). Courts have interpreted the term 'distribute' . . . quite broadly to include not only the transfer of physical possession, but also other acts perpetrated in furtherance of a transfer or sale, such as arranging or supervising the delivery, or negotiating for or receiving the purchase price. United States v. Luster, 896 F.2d 1122, 1127 (8th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation omitted). Here, the government provided ample evidence that Adame was intimately involved in the methamphetamine transaction that occurred on May 4, 2011. The government introduced footage of a CI and Adame negotiating the price of three ounces of methamphetamine and discussing when payment would be made. The CI further testified that she made a partial payment to Adame and then later met with Mendiola to collect the methamphetamine. The government introduced footage of the meeting with Mendiola, as well as three ounces of methamphetamine that Mendiola provided to the CI during the meeting. This evidence was more than sufficient to prove that Adame distributed over 50 grams of methamphetamine on May 4, 2011. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Adame's motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to count 5 of the indictment.