Opinion ID: 566443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence-Counts One, Four, Five and Seven

Text: 49 Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of conspiracy to introduce and introducing misbranded MDMA into interstate commerce with intent to mislead or defraud natural persons or a government agency, specifically a local police department. We agree, but only in part. Codefendant Mitcheltree adopted defendant's brief on this point and we analyzed the sufficiency issues in her appeal, considering the facts in both cases. See Mitcheltree, 940 F.2d at 1345-1352. We held that although the evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce with an intent to mislead or defraud natural persons, it was insufficient on the government agency theory. Id. at 1346-1347, 1351-1352. We follow the same course in this case. 50 Because the MDMA misbranding counts (counts one, four, five and seven) were submitted to the jury on a theory for which insufficient evidence exists and we cannot 'confidently determine that the jury relied on the theory validly supported by the evidence,' we must reverse the convictions on those counts and also remand for a new trial. Id. at 1352 (quoting United States v. Larranaga, 787 F.2d 489, 498 (10th Cir.1986)). As in Mitcheltree, we decline to order the district court to impose misdemeanor convictions on those counts. Id. at 1352 n. 17. 51