Opinion ID: 4873
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jose angel naegele

Text: In his sole point of error, Naegele asserts the district court erred in finding sufficient evidence existed to support his conviction because there is a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof adduced at trial. Naegele does not contend the evidence is insufficient to establish any one or more of the elements necessary to prove the conspiracy. Rather, he contends the government proved the existence of multiple conspiracies while the indictment alleged only a single conspiracy. He asserts that his membership in a single conspiracy is undermined because 1) there is a six month lapse in time between his arrest in New Mexico in 1988 and the next seizure of drugs at the Sierra Blanca checkpoint in 1989, 2) the alleged acts of the conspiracy took place in different states, and 3) there is no evidence of his continued participation in the conspiracy after his arrest in 1988. Naegele candidly recognizes that a single conspiracy is not transformed into multiple conspiracies simply by lapse of time, change in membership, or change in geographical emphasis.13 United States v. De 13 Naegele's candid presentation is refreshing; his brief is well written and concise. Unfortunately, it would appear that no amount of legal reasoning could save the day for Naegele as the 16 Varona, 872 F. 2d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1989). Were the principles of conspiracy law not weighed so heavily in favor of the affirmance of Naegele's conviction, we would be inclined to reject his contention nevertheless. In order for Naegele to succeed on his variance theory, he must demonstrate that his substantial rights have been prejudiced. United States v. Guerra-Marez, 928 F.2d 665, 671 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 322 and 112 S.Ct. 443 (1991) (quoting United States v. Richardson, 883 F.2d 1147, 1154-55 (5th Cir. 1987)). It is by now a well established principle in this circuit that if the government proves the existence of multiple conspiracies and the defendant's involvement in at least one of them, then clearly there is no variance affecting the defendant's substantial rights. Id. at 671-72 (quoting United States v. L'Hoste, 609 F.2d 796, 801 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 833 (1980)); United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367, 382 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 943 (1982) (citations omitted). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assuming arguendo multiple conspiracies were proven by the evidence, Naegele's participation in at least one conspiracy is amply supported. Testimony of the arresting officers in New Mexico indicated Naegele stated he was operating with Juan Aron Sotelo Sanchez and had done so record bears out that the facts of his conviction are insufficient for reversal under the principles of conspiracy law as enunciated by this circuit. 17 before on at least one occasion.14 Both individuals had identical C.B. radios in their vehicles and both radios were tuned to the same channel. A substantial part of the approximately 100 pounds of marijuana seized from Naegele's truck was in plain view in the passenger compartment and it was Naegele's own statements regarding the location of the remainder of the haul that led the New Mexico officers to remove it from concealed compartments in the truck. Moreover, Naegele informed the New Mexico authorities that Juan Sanchez had placed the marijuana in the pickup in the country of Mexico, that he met Juan Sanchez north of the U.S.-Mexico border, and that he had driven the truck from that point until the time of the arrest. With these facts in evidence, Naegele's rights were not substantially prejudiced even if there is a variance because these facts are sufficient to support a finding that Naegele was guilty of at least one conspiracy involving himself and Juan Sanchez.