Camara

MEMORANDUM *

Rodolfo Camara appeals his convictions and sentence for distribution and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not recited herein, except as necessary.

I

Camara contends that he was placed in double jeopardy in that he was retried after being acquitted of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. Howev *41 er, it is well established that “a substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not the ‘same offense’ for double jeopardy purposes.” United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 389 , 112 S.Ct. 1377 , 118 L.Ed.2d 25 (1992); see also United States v. Arbelaez, 812 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir.1987) (rejecting identical challenge).

II

Camara claims that there was a constructive amendment, or alternatively a fatal variance, to the indictment. Camara essentially argues that the government tried him on a conspiracy theory during the second trial. Camara, of course, was not charged with conspiracy in that he was acquitted of this count during the first trial. According to Camara, the government’s reliance upon a conspiracy theory resulted in…