Opinion ID: 162322
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mirelez

Text: Mirelez argues that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a conviction for conspiracy with regard to Count 47. A conviction for conspiracy requires “(1) an 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 of the alleged conspirators.” United States v. Carter, 130 F.3d 1432, 1439 (10th Cir. 1997). Mirelez argues that he intended to defraud Bench by taking his money and never delivering drugs. Mirelez therefore argues that there was never an agreement to commit an illegal act. However, the evidence presented in the - 14 - record is consistent with Knudsen and Mirelez conspiring to sell Bench a substance that contained methamphetamine, but in a greatly diluted form. There is sufficient evidence for the jury to make such an inference. We find ample evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that Mirelez conspired to violate the law.