Roberds

MEMORANDUM *

This consolidated appeal is from the joint trial of Paula M. Roberds (“Ro-berds”), Roderick Williams, and Byron Williams for offenses arising from a criminal conspiracy to transport to and distribute drugs in Anchorage, Alaska. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm in part and reverse in part.

Byron Williams

Byron Williams appeals his convictions of drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)-(C), maintaining drug-involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 (a)(2), (b), possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and two counts of attempted possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(C). We reject Byron Williams’ claim that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred his prosecution of all but the drug conspiracy charge. It has long been established that “a substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not the ‘same of-fence’ for double jeopardy purposes.” United States v. Felix, 508 U.S. 378 , 389, 112 S.Ct. 1377 , 118 L.Ed.2d 25 (1992); see United States v. Wylie,…

I agree with the majority’s affirmance of the convictions of Byron Williams and Roderick Williams. But I would also affirm Paula Roberds’ conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could have found that Roberds maintained, at least in part, a drug-involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 (a)(1), (b).

In addition to evidence that Roberds was fully aware that Williams was manufacturing, distributing, and using drugs in the apartment that they shared, there are two additional pieces of evidence that a rational jury could have relied on to conclude that Roberds possessed the requisite mens rea for her conviction. First, the government presented testimony that Ro-berds drove a vehicle during what the jury could find to be a drug transaction; when searched, the vehicle yielded an open, cash-filled purse believed to belong to Ro-berds. Although her participation in that drug transaction does not directly prove that she maintained her apartment for drug-related purposes, in a light most favorable to the government it supports an inference the jury could properly draw that she was involved and, together with the…