Court Opinion

ID: 9886344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 16:00:36.5513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:11.022695
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 23-1341
                          ___________________________

                               United States of America

                          lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                             v.

Sarah Chezahrae Goforth, also known as Sarah Hedrick, also known as Darah Bachelor

                        lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                        ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
                                    ____________

                           Submitted: September 18, 2023
                              Filed: October 6, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                              ____________

PER CURIAM.

       A jury found Sarah Chezahrae Goforth guilty of conspiring to possess with
intent to distribute and to distribute Schedule III controlled substances, see 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(E), 846, namely, anabolic steroids. She maintains that the district
court1 should have sua sponte entered a judgment of acquittal because the evidence
was insufficient for conviction. We affirm.

       We ordinarily review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo,
viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and granting all
reasonable inferences that the evidence supports. See United States v. Garbacz, 33
F.4th 459, 466 (8th Cir. 2022). And we will reverse only if no reasonable jury could
find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. But here, Goforth forfeited her
sufficiency argument by not bringing it to the attention of the district court, and so we
review merely for plain error. See id. "To establish a conspiracy, the government must
prove: (1) the existence of an agreement among two or more people to achieve an
illegal purpose, (2) the defendant's knowledge of the agreement, and (3) that the
defendant knowingly joined and participated in the agreement." See United States v.
Hamilton, 929 F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir. 2019).

      Goforth maintains that the evidence was insufficient "because there is no
evidence linking Goforth to the possession or distribution of a substance shown by
forensic testing to be a schedule III controlled substance during the course of the
conspiracy." But by charging a conspiracy, the government did not need to prove that
Goforth committed the substantive offenses underlying the conspiracy. See Ocasio
v. United States, 578 U.S. 282, 288 (2016). Besides, the evidence was sufficient to
show that Goforth was actually possessing and distributing steroids. Three co-
conspirators testified that Goforth stored them and shipped them to customers. "[W]e
have repeatedly upheld jury verdicts based solely on the testimony of conspirators
and cooperating witnesses, noting it is within the province of the jury to make
credibility assessments." See United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir.
2019). Further, "[i]t is well established in this circuit that the identity of a controlled

       1
       The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

                                           -2-
substance can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence and
opinion testimony." See United States v. Cole, 537 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2008). A
postal inspector testified that she seized packages mailed to and from the leader of the
conspiracy, and their contents were tested and confirmed to be anabolic steroids.

        Goforth concedes that at least one intercepted package connected to her
contained anabolic steroids, but she says this is insufficient to support her conviction
because she did not mail it until the ringleader of the conspiracy began cooperating
with the government. She cites United States v. Nelson, 165 F.3d 1180, 1184 (8th Cir.
1999) in support of her contention. We explained in Nelson that "[i]t is well settled
that there can be no indictable conspiracy involving only the defendant and
government agents and informers." Nelson is inapposite. Four witnesses testified to
being participants in this conspiracy, and their testimonies implicated others who
joined and left the conspiracy at varying times. In addition, the ringleader himself
testified that Goforth had begun participating "[l]ong before" he began cooperating
with the government, and the jury was entitled to accept that testimony as true.

      Affirmed.
                        ______________________________

                                          -3-