distribution. Id. at 349. In rejecting Lee’s argument that multiple conspiracies were proven, we held that “[although Dortch may have had several ‘customers’ in the Detroit area, each of these customers were part of the same ‘chain’ conspiracy, the object of which was the transportation of cocaine from Florida to Michigan and the distribution of cocaine in the Detroit area.” Id. Similarly, the jury could have found that Defendants here were part of a single conspiracy with the goal of distributing crack cocaine in the area of West 80th Street, West 83rd Street, and Detroit Avenue, because Defendants Caver and Abdullah were customers of Hall and/or Defendant Cloud, even if they rarely interacted with each other. See id; see also United States v. Kelley, 849 F.2d 999, 1003 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). 2. Prejudice Even assuming, arguendo, that
holding that a master conspiracy with subschemes to sell speed was a single conspiracy holding that evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy where the evidence did not show that individuals who sold drugs to the defendant knew that the drugs were meant to be resold holding that a defendant who was involved only in distributing drugs in san francisco was part of a single conspiracy with a common distributor who also operated in washington and los angeles holding that police had probable cause to arrest defendant who was seen in the company of drug suspects was seen meeting suspects while they engaged in a drug conspiracy and whose behavior was consistent with the inference he was part of the conspiracy holding that there was a sufficient basis for joinder of seven defendants in a single trial where all the defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy