Opinion ID: 162640
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 103
104 Attaluri challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of fraud against the government if Overholt's injection of wastes into Class II wells was lawful. Because we affirm that the injection was unlawful and Attaluri concedes that such a ruling would moot this challenge, we need not address it further. 105
106 Overholt argues that his conspiracy conviction must be overturned because there was insufficient evidence to prove he knew of the conspiracy's alleged common goal or objective. Stating that [t]he conspiracy's goal was to receive payment from the federal government for services that Allied did not render properly, Br. at 20, he asserts that he was unaware of Allied's specific contractual obligations to the government and hence could not have had the goal of defrauding the United States by illegally disposing of the waste. His only interest, he asserts, was to make a profit by transporting the waste wherever Allied instructed. This argument, however, relates to only the fraud objects of the alleged conspiracy. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the objects of violating the SDWA or RCRA. Therefore, we need not consider the argument's merits. See McNutt, 908 F.2d at 565. 107