Opinion ID: 200347
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Carey's Absence

Text: Carey further argues that his absence during the drug deals indicated that he did not participate in the conspiracy. The record, however, supports a finding of the opposite. We have said that proof of direct participation in the sale of drugs is not required to convict in a drug conspiracy case. United States v. Marrero-Ortiz, 160 F.3d 768, 773 (1st Cir. 1998). Here, there was sufficient evidence from which a rational juror could find that Carey conspired with Henderson and Powers to distribute crack cocaine: Carey had initially set up the October 19, 1998 deal and had repeatedly demanded that he be paid for doing so; he first contacted Henderson about the possibility of selling ounce quantities of crack cocaine to Mozynski; he told Mozynski that all he needed was 24 hours notice to get the deal done; he allowed his house to be used for the October 19, 1998 deal; and he facilitated the delivery of the crack cocaine on November 17 in order to avoid -11- a dispute between Henderson and Mozynski over the fraudulent sale of wax. Carey's involvement in the distribution of crack cocaine was also corroborated by the following evidence: the November 16, 1998, tape recording where a third party was heard asking Carey for crack cocaine; the crack cocaine and cash found in his house at the time of his arrest; the intimate knowledge he displayed of Henderson's trafficking activities during his taped conversation with Mozynski on November 16; the awareness he displayed of other drug transactions throughout the investigation; and Powers' testimony that she saw Carey buy crack cocaine from Henderson hundreds of times and that Carey resold it to his own customers. In sum, based on the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Carey guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.