a new trial. As part of his argument, Rees first conceded the waste products found at his residence could be used, as a matter of law, to support his conviction: The Courts have held that the measure of a mixture or substance containing controlled substances, including methamphetamine, includes the total weight of the mixture or substance, and is not limited to the amount of usable drug. United States v. Kuenstler, 325 F.3d 1015, 1023 (8th Cir.2003); Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 461-62, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991). Rees argued, however, the evidence was insufficient to show he could have reasonably foreseen being held accountable for the mixtures found at his residence. See, e.g., United States v. Davidson, 195 F.3d 402, 410 (8th Cir.1999) (Guidelines sentencing) (<HOLDING>). Rees rested his argument on a government
holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy holding that the act of slamming  is objectively sufficiently serious to state a claim for relief under the eighth amendment alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that party is not permitted to use the accident of a remand to raise an issue that it could just as well have raised in the first appeal internal quotation marks and alterations omitted recognizing that procedural sentencing error is harmless if the resulting sentence is not longer thanthat to which the defendant would otherwise be subject alterations and internal quotation marks omitted holding a defendant in a drug conspiracy case is responsible for all contraband within the scope of criminal activity jointly undertaken by the defendant and reasonably foreseeable to her internal quotation and alterations omitted