## Facts

- A federal grand jury charged Donald B.W. Evans, Dominic Evans (also known as Dominic Mitchell), James E. Joubert, Perry Roberts III, and Diana J. Brice with conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.
- The indictment described a Tulsa, Oklahoma crack-distribution operation alleged to have begun in early 1987 and continued through March 7, 1990, involving acquisition of cocaine (including from California), conversion to crack, and resale in Oklahoma.
- At trial, the government presented evidence of a distribution network with Carl Walker portrayed as a central participant who purchased crack cocaine from Donald Evans and sold crack cocaine to Joubert and Brice.
- Evidence showed Donald Evans, working with an associate named James Backward, converted powder cocaine into crack cocaine and distributed crack to Roberts and possibly to Dominic Evans.
- Evidence showed Dominic Evans sold and “fronted” powder cocaine to Backward and attended a drug-related meeting involving Donald Evans and Walker.
- Evidence showed Roberts purchased crack cocaine from Donald Evans, “fronted” crack to Eric Rentie, and attended a drug-related meeting involving Donald Evans and Walker.
- Evidence showed Joubert bought crack cocaine from Walker and Rentie and “fronted” crack cocaine to Rentie.
- Evidence also showed Joubert and Rentie borrowed scales from Brice to weigh crack cocaine; the government relied on this and other proof to argue Brice knowingly joined the charged conspiracy.
- A jury found all five defendants guilty of the charged crack-conspiracy offense, and the district court imposed lengthy sentences under the Sentencing Guidelines, including drug-quantity findings based on conspiracy-related conduct.
- All five defendants appealed, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence (including whether the proof established a single conspiracy and each defendant’s membership) and the Guideline drug-quantity calculations.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of a single charged crack-distribution conspiracy and to prove that each defendant knowingly joined it, including whether the proof against Diana Brice showed agreement rather than mere association or isolated assistance.
2. Whether the district court erred in calculating the quantity of drugs attributable to each defendant for Sentencing Guidelines purposes based on relevant conduct and reasonable foreseeability.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed Diana Brice’s conspiracy conviction, holding the evidence was insufficient to establish that she joined the extensive conspiracy charged.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conspiracy convictions of Donald Evans, Dominic Evans, James Joubert, and Perry Roberts, concluding the record supported the jury’s findings as to a single conspiracy and those defendants’ knowing participation.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentences (including the drug-quantity determinations) for the four defendants whose convictions were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction for conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to violate the law and the defendant’s knowing, voluntary participation; association with conspirators or limited assistance, without proof of agreement, is not enough.
- A single conspiracy may be shown when participants pursue a common unlawful goal through interdependent activities, even if members have different roles or interact indirectly.
- On appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence, the court views the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government, while still requiring proof that the defendant joined the charged agreement.
- For Sentencing Guidelines purposes in drug conspiracies, a defendant may be held responsible for drug quantities tied to jointly undertaken criminal activity that were reasonably foreseeable to the defendant; drug-quantity findings are reviewed for clear error.

## Conclusion

United States v. Evans affirmed four defendants’ crack-conspiracy convictions and Guideline sentences based on evidence of an interconnected Tulsa distribution network involving purchases, sales, fronting arrangements, and meetings among participants, but reversed Diana Brice’s conviction because the government did not present enough evidence that she knowingly agreed to join the large conspiracy charged.


United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663 (1992)