Opinion ID: 219861
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counts One, Three, Four, and Six

Text: Davae contends that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that he and David 6 were members of a conspiracy, as opposed to merely independent operators who lived together and both sold heroin. He therefore argues that his conviction on count one, the conspiracy count, must fail.3 The elements of a charge of conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 are “(1) a unity of purpose between the alleged conspirators; (2) an intent to achieve a common goal; and (3) an agreement to work together toward that goal.” United States v. Pressler, 256 F.3d 144, 149 (3d Cir. 2001). As we have held, a “conspiracy can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence,” and its “existence can be inferred from evidence of related facts and circumstances from which it appears, as a reasonable and logical inference, that the activities of the participants could not have been carried on except as a result of a preconceived scheme or common understanding.” United States v. Boria, 592 F.3d 476, 481 (3d Cir. 2010). Davae contends that the government failed to proffer sufficient evidence to prove these elements, as there was no evidence of joint activity, no evidence that the brothers shared a common source of heroin, and no evidence that they had agreed to use the firearms found in their bedrooms to protect each other’s drugs and money. Davae also 3 Our resolution of count one is also dispositive of counts three, four, and six. Davae concedes that if his conviction for count one is upheld, his conviction for counts three and four must be upheld as well, on the basis of co-conspirator liability. (Davae Br. 33.) He also concedes in his reply brief that if his conviction for count one is upheld, his conviction for count six must also be upheld because the Ruger firearm found in his bedroom was strategically located to protect his drug proceeds, and thus if those proceeds were the fruits of a conspiracy, he is guilty of that count as well. (Davae Reply 42.) 7 notes that the heroin that he sold had a different marking than the heroin sold by David. We reject these arguments. The evidence presented to the jury included the following: (1) after each sale, the seller immediately returned to the apartment where the brothers resided together, (2) no heroin was found in Davae’s bedroom, suggesting that he did not maintain a separate stash (3) nineteen cell phones were located throughout the brothers’ apartment, with no indication of individual ownership, and (4) David returned a call placed to Davae’s cell phone to negotiate a narcotics transaction, and even sought to identify the customer. In light of this substantial body of evidence, the fact that the District Court did not sua sponte enter a judgment of acquittal on count one was not plain error.