United States v. Gary Sims, 999 F.3d 547

Background

DEA investigated a Jonesboro, Arkansas meth distribution ring in 2015 led by Freddie Capone; Gary Sims was alleged to be a recurring source of supply.
Indictment charged a single conspiracy (Sept. 2014–May 2016) to distribute meth and a separate distribution count; Capone, Holt, and Martin pled guilty; Sims and Logwood went to trial.
Trial evidence included multiple controlled buys, intercepted calls/texts, and cooperator testimony that Sims supplied meth to Capone and others (including a Sept. 2015 sale of 25.9 g to Martin).
Jury convicted Sims of conspiracy and unlawful distribution; district court attributed 99.05 grams of actual meth to Sims and sentenced him to 108 months imprisonment plus five years supervised release.
On appeal Sims challenged (1) a variance (multiple conspiracies), (2) admission of coconspirator statements, (3) the court’s juror-polling procedure, and (4) the drug-quantity calculation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Alleged variance between indictment and proof (one v. multiple conspiracies)	Government: Evidence shows one interconnected conspiracy in NE Arkansas with shared goal, overlapping participants, communications, and procedures.	Sims: Evidence proved two separate conspiracies (Sept. 2015 Missouri sale vs. Apr–May 2016 Jonesboro activity).	Affirmed single conspiracy; a reasonable juror could find a common goal and links; even if variance existed, no prejudice shown.
Admissibility of coconspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)	Statements (Capone–Martin and Capone–Holt calls) identified Sims’ supplier role and were made in furtherance of the conspiracy.	Sims: Statements were not in furtherance and thus hearsay.	Admissible: court held the statements identified role/supply and furthered the conspiracy.
Juror polling and coercion (request to poll Juror No. 4 separately)	Government: Polling each juror in open court satisfied Rule 31(d); record shows no coercion.	Sims: Requested isolated, individual polling of Juror No. 4 and inquiry whether verdict was coerced.	No abuse of discretion: judge asked each juror individually “Is this your verdict?”; each answered yes; no evidence of coercion.
Drug-quantity attribution at sentencing (99.05 g)	Government: PSR and cooperator testimony support attributing all foreseeable transactions in furtherance of the conspiracy to Sims.	Sims: Only 25.9 g (the September delivery he admitted) was provably supplied by him.	Affirmed 99.05 g attribution; cooperator testimony showed repeated handoffs and foreseeable quantities; no clear error.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Slagg, 651 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2011) (variance test for single vs. multiple conspiracies)
United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2013) (jury decides single vs. multiple conspiracies; review for clear error)
United States v. Mshihiri, 816 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2016) (single conspiracy may include changing participants/activities)
United States v. Ghant, 339 F.3d 660 (8th Cir. 2003) (similar & close-in-time conspiracies reduce spillover prejudice)
United States v. Barth, 424 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2005) (Rule 404(b) analysis for spillover/prejudice)
United States v. Torrez, 925 F.3d 391 (8th Cir. 2019) (elements for admitting coconspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
United States v. Cazares, 521 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2008) (broad interpretation of "in furtherance" for coconspirator statements)
United States v. Jordan, 260 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2001) (statements about supply, roles, quantities advance conspiracy)
United States v. Amaya, 731 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review and purpose of juror polling under Rule 31(d))
United States v. Badolato, 710 F.2d 1509 (11th Cir. 1983) (isolated polling in unusual coercion situations)
United States v. Sainz Navarrete, 955 F.3d 713 (8th Cir. 2020) (government bears preponderance burden on drug quantity at sentencing)
United States v. Plancarte-Vazquez, 450 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2006) (co-conspirator testimony can support sentencing quantity)