of drugs for sale, the method of payment, and the threat of violence for nonpayment. Appellants’ arguments in support of a theory of multiple conspiracies are merit-less. First, although they concede that 'Ramirez testified that “some of the drugs belonged to the Mexican Mafia,” and that he had agreed to “sell drugs within state prison for Mr. Fernandez, as would others associated with the Mexican Mafia,” 2002 WL 32302660 at *79, 80 (emphasis added), they maintain that “no evidence ... was presented to suggest that any other appellant knew about these private schemes, much less took part in the conspiracy to sell these drugs.”. Even if true, this fact does not mean that there was not a single overall conspiracy to sell drugs in penal facilities. See Bibbero, 749 F.2d at 587 (<HOLDING>). Second, the assertion that “each ... person’s
holding a conspiracy to conceal should not be inferred from acts of concealment because every conspiracy will inevitably be followed by actions taken to cover the conspirators traces and the opposite result would extend the life of a conspiracy indefinitely holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges holding that a single conspiracy may involve several subagreements or subgroups of conspirators holding that a master conspiracy with subschemes to sell speed was a single conspiracy holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators