Opinion ID: 795598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: variance between charged conspiracy and proof

Text: 22 Marcus Snow challenges his conspiracy conviction on the ground that there was a fatal variance between the conspiracy charged in Count I of the superseding indictment and the proof at trial. We have previously recognized that a variance error is committed [w]hen convictions have been obtained on the theory that all defendants were members of a single conspiracy although, in fact, the proof disclosed multiple conspiracies. United States v. Johansen, 56 F.3d 347, 350 (2d Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Bertolotti, 529 F.2d 149, 154 (2d Cir.1975)). Here, we find no such variance. 23 As Snow concedes, there was absolutely no evidence at trial that he was incarcerated at any point during the alleged conspiracy; indeed, it was only in the presentence investigation report that it first came to light that Snow was incarcerated for ninety days during the four-year period of the charged conspiracy. Thus, there was no proof at trial from which the charged conspiracy could vary. However, even if evidence of this incarceration had been introduced at trial, it would not have proven the existence of multiple conspiracies, since this evidence, standing alone, would be insufficient to establish that Snow withdrew from the original conspiracy. See United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246, 268-69 (2d Cir.1992). Finding no variance, fatal or otherwise, between the indicted conspiracy and that for which Snow was convicted, we affirm his conspiracy conviction.