Opinion ID: 657206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Improper Variance

Text: 28 Next, Richardson argues that an improper variance exists between the conspiracy to distribute charge contained in the indictment and the government's proof at trial. Specifically, Richardson contends that multiple conspiracies were proven at trial rather than a single overall conspiracy to distribute marijuana. Also, Richardson asserts the related claim that the jury should have been instructed by the district court with respect to multiple conspiracies. 29 First, Richardson did not request a multiple conspiracy instruction at trial. Therefore, this claim will be reviewed only for clear error. See United States v. Pearce, 912 F.2d 159, 163 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1093, 111 S.Ct. 978, 112 L.Ed.2d 1063 (1991). As noted, this claim supplants Richardson's contention that multiple conspiracies were proven at trial. However, the district court committed no clear error in instructing the jury under the facts of this case. 30 Variance occurs (i)f only one conspiracy is alleged in the indictment and the evidence adduced at trial can reasonably be construed to support a finding of multiple conspiracies. United States v. Paulino, 935 F.2d 739, 748 (6th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 315, 116 L.Ed.2d 257 and cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 323, 116 L.Ed.2d 264 and cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 660, 116 L.Ed.2d 751 (1991), and cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 883, 116 L.Ed.2d 787 (1992). However, reversal is required only where the substantial rights of a defendant have been affected. United States v. Bakke, 942 F.2d 977, 985 (6th Cir.1991) (citing United States v. Grunsfeld, 558 F.2d 1231, 1238 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 872, 98 S.Ct. 219, 54 L.Ed.2d 152 (1977), and cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1016, 98 S.Ct. 733, 54 L.Ed.2d 761 (1978)). Moreover, a single conspiracy does not become multiple conspiracies simply because each member of the conspiracy did not know every other member, or because each member did not know of or become involved in all of the activities in furtherance of the conspiracy. Bakke, 942 F.2d at 985 (quoting Rios, 842 F.2d at 872). Whether a single or multiple conspiracies have been shown is usually a question of fact to be resolved by the jury under proper instructions and to be considered on appeal in the light most favorable to the government. Grunsfeld, 558 F.2d at 1238. 31 Here, Richardson's participation in the overall conspiracy to distribute marijuana was indeed relatively minor. However, Richardson agreed to accept delivery of 100 pounds of marijuana after Kohn told him that he was concerned because others involved in the conspiracy had been arrested. Essentially, Richardson undertook an act in furtherance of the overall conspiracy to distribute marijuana by this act. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it is concluded that no clear error was committed in instructing the jury. Furthermore, no variance between the indictment and the evidence adduced at trial occurred.