[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 4, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

N o . 05-11617

CLERK

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar

D . C. Docket No. 03-00448-CR-T-23-EAJ

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT REYNOLDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Middle District of Florida

(M a y 4, 2006)

B efo re ANDERSON, BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

R o b ert Reynolds appeals his conviction for conspiring to possess with intent

to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21U.S.C. §§ 846,

8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A )(ii). Reynolds asserts the evidence presented was insufficient to su p p o rt his conviction. We affirm the district court.

W e review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in th e light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences in fav o r of the verdict.1 United States v. Hernandez, 433 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ). Section 846 of Title 21 of the United States Code provides: A n y person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those p rescrib ed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of th e attempt or conspiracy.

S p ecifically, Reynolds was charged with conspiring to possess with intent to d istrib u te five kilograms or more of cocaine; in violation of 21U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A)(ii).

T o sustain a conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to d is tr ib u te , the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that an a g r ee m e n t existed between the defendant and one or more persons; (2) the object o f which is to do either an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. United S ta te s v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir. 1999). "Participation in a crim in al conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence; a common purpose and p la n may be inferred from a development and collocation of circumstances." United States v. Perez-Tosta, 36 F.3d 1552, 1557 (11th Cir. 1994) (quotations and citatio n s omitted). "Guilt may exist even when the defendant plays only a minor r o le and does not know all the details of the conspiracy." Id. We have held "u n co rro b o rated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to support a conviction . . . if it is not on its face incredible or otherwise insubstantial." United States v. L eQ u ire, 943 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991).

Michael Arline, a principal offender in the drug distribution organization w ith which Reynolds allegedly conspired, provided uncontradicted testimony at trial that between 1999 and July 2003, he fronted approximately ten kilograms of co cain e to Reynolds, and the drugs were for resale, not to be used for Reynolds' p erso n al consumption. Jeremie Malvoisin, another offender in the drug d istrib u tio n organization with which Reynolds allegedly conspired, testified he w en t to Reynolds' barbershop with Arline twice to deliver cocaine. Based on this ev id en ce, a jury could reasonably infer there was an agreement between Arline and R eyn o ld s, the object of which was to sell a controlled substance in violation of fed eral law. B ecau se each of the elements of the charged offenses was sufficiently p ro v en , Reynolds failed to demonstrate a reasonable jury could not have found b eyo n d a reasonable doubt he committed the offense for which he was convicted.

Accordingly, we affirm Reynolds' conviction.

AFFIRMED.

1 Because Reynolds moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government's case and within seven days after the guilty verdict he preserved his right of appellate review. See United States v. Allison 616 F.2d 779, 784 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding a Rule 29(c) motion made within seven days after the guilty verdict is sufficient to preserve an appellant's right to appellate review).