Breithaupt

concurring.

I concur in the result.

MEMORANDUM ***

Ethan Breithaupt appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Breithaupt argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the district court erred in admitting various out-of-court statements attributed to a co-conspirator.

The record, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, see United States v. Magallon-Jimenez, 219 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir.2000), contains circumstantial evidence that gives rise to reasonable inferences that Breithaupt conspired to distribute methamphetamine. See United States v. Daychild, 357 F.3d 1082,1097 (9th Cir.2004). First, numerous witnesses testified that Co-Defendant Awbery’s main business was the large-scale distribution of methamphetamine, and that Breithaupt was one of Awbery’s “main people.” Co-Defendant Breanne Ruff testified that she frequently drove Awbery around for the sole purpose of distributing methamphetamine and, on one such occasion, saw Breithaupt and Awbery exchange money and drugs out the window. The jury was entitled to infer that the drugs in question were methamphetamine. Other witnesses testified that…