Nye

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The jury, under correct instructions of the district court, found Nye guilty of participating in the conspiracy charged in Count One of the indictment. On appeal in this court, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the existence of a single conspiracy. United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581, 586-87 (9th Cir.1984).

Although Nye may not have had direct contact with Jimenez, Olivas, or Uribe, there was sufficient evidence that Nye had reason to know of the scope of the overall conspiracy. For example, Nye was asked to supply a pound of methamphetamine, and Nye offered a price for the product, in coded language no less. Herrera ended up purchasing the methamphetamine from another supplier, which would have put Nye on notice that Herrera was buying from multiple suppliers. Thus, Nye had reason to know that he was but one player in a larger conspiracy.

“Evidence of even a slight connection, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict a defendant of knowingly participating in an established conspiracy.” United States v. Mares, 940 F.2d…

MEMORANDUM **

Steven Nye appeals his conviction on Count One for conspiracy and his sentence. We reverse his conviction on Count One, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing.

*483 The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Nye was part of the single conspiracy charged in the Superseding Indictment. There was no evidence of “one overall agreement” among Nye, Herrera, Jimenez, Uribe, Theodoratos and Olivas “to perform various functions to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy.” United States v. Zemek, 634 F.2d 1159, 1167 (9th Cir.1980). There was no evidence that Nye even knew of Jiminez, Uribe, or Olivas or had reason to believe that his own benefits were dependent on the success of some larger venture involving unknown participants. See United States v. Kenny, 645 F.2d 1323, 1335 (9th Cir.1981).

At oral argument, the Government conceded that if the drug transactions ended with the March 5, 2003 transaction, Nye’s multiple conspiracy argument would have merit. However, according to the Government, the March 30, 2003 telephone calls between Nye and Herrera establish the “slight connection” necessary to tie Nye…