United States v. Wells, 2011 WL 3055307

Wells was convicted by jury of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 841(b)(1)(A) and sentenced to life imprisonment under a mandatory-minimum provision.
Indictment alleged Wells conspired with Jeff Wessels, Andy Wessels, Stacey Shanahan, and unnamed others beginning no later than fall 2007 through March 20, 2009.
Evidence showed methamphetamine manufacturing across three Iowa properties: Swisher House with lab remnants but no direct Wells link; Tiffin House with outbuilding evidence but no Wells fingerprints; and Hickory Hollow with Wells allegedly cooking weekly.
Swisher House produced lab evidence; Wells himself had no shown presence or fingerprints there; Jeff Wessels testified Wells assisted there on a few occasions by providing location or ammonia.
Tiffin House outbuilding contained meth precursors and a bedroom item linked to Wells by a witness; however, there was no direct physical link tying Wells to the site.
At Hickory Hollow, multiple witnesses testified Wells cooked meth with others and that Lil Nick, Abram, Brown, and others participated; jailhouse snitches Wyse and Cotton testified to Wells’s admissions and teaching.
Wells moved for acquittal on the conspiracy count after the government rested; the district court denied; the jury returned a conspiracy verdict and Wells was sentenced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of an agreement	Wells allegedly had no proof of a true agreement with anyone to manufacture meth.	Evidence showed Wells participated with multiple coconspirators; no explicit agreement needed.	Sufficient evidence supported existence of an agreement to conspiracy.
Plain error in admission of evidence	Disputed testimony and items prejudicial to Wells should have been excluded under Rule 403.	Any error was not plain or prejudicial; district court acted within discretion.	No plain error found; admission not shown to affect substantial rights or fairness.
Ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal	Counsel failed to object to prejudicial evidence and slept during trial; merits a new trial.	Ineffectiveness claims are typically post-conviction; record inadequate for direct review.	Claims were not reviewed on direct appeal; no evidentiary hearing—declined.

United States v. Van Nguyen, 602 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2010) (highly deferential standard for sufficiency; cannot weigh credibility on appeal)
United States v. Malloy, 614 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2010) (strict standard: reverse only if no reasonable jury could find guilt)
United States v. Nolen, 536 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2008) (credibility not for appellate weighing; sufficiency review)
United States v. Lopez, 443 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2006) (conspiracy may be proven by tacit or implicit agreement)
United States v. Smith, 487 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2007) (participation in conspiracy can be shown by minor role)
United States v. Anderson, 78 F.3d 420 (8th Cir. 1996) (credibility not reweighed on sufficiency review)
United States v. Galvan, 961 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1992) (unindicted co-conspirators can support conspiracy conviction)
Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951) (unindicted co-conspirator participation allowed under conspiracy doctrine)
United States v. Moore, 639 F.3d 443 (8th Cir. 2011) (variance concerns when indictment date differs from trial proof; timeliness matters)