Opinion ID: 552246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attempted Manufacture of Amphetamine

Text: 120 Mary Sullivan challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain her conviction on Count 3 of the indictment for attempted manufacture of amphetamine. 42 She contends that there is no evidence that she either participated in the attempt to manufacture amphetamine, or that she aided and abetted the attempted manufacture of amphetamine. We disagree. 121 The crime of attempt requires proof of (1) the requisite criminal intent, and (2) an act or omission constituting a substantial step toward commission of the substantive offense. United States v. Savaiano, 843 F.2d at 1296; see also United States v. Remigio, 767 F.2d 730, 733 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1009, 106 S.Ct. 535, 88 L.Ed.2d 465 (1985). Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, there was evidence that Mary Sullivan spoke with Evelyn Rogers on the phone concerning the proposed amphetamine cook; that she met with Evelyn Rogers in a motel room to arrange for the glassware delivery; that she participated in the glassware delivery to the Sullivan home, and the concealment of the glassware behind the house; that she traveled to Irving, Texas, with her husband to arrange for the delivery of phenylacetic acid by Steve Howell; that she participated in the recorded conversation of July 3, 1988, in which she discussed the planned amphetamine cook; and that on the day before the lab was set up, she told Steve Howell that she had been to the library studying up ... on cooking procedures. See X R. at 330-36, 343-44, 367, 375; XI R. at 522-25, 557. 122 We are convinced there is sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find Mary Sullivan guilty of attempted manufacture of amphetamine beyond a reasonable doubt.