21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) & 846. 6 . Defendant Cloud also argues that he could not "depend on” other coconspirators for success because the evidence demonstrated that he did not transact business with several members of the conspiracy. This argument is inconsistent with the longstanding principle that a conspiracy conviction will stand if "each member of the conspiracy realized that he was participating in a joint venture, even if he did not know the identities of every other member, or was not involved in all the activities in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Martinez, 430 F.3d at 332-33; Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 556-57, 68 S.Ct. 248, 92 L.Ed. 154 (1947); see also United States v. Potts, No. 97-6000, 1999 WL 96756, *7 (6th Cir. Feb.2, 1999) (unpublished disposition) (<HOLDING>). 7 . There were other links between
holding an individual who acts outside the scope of a conspiracy cannot bind his coconspirators 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 evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to find that the defendant participated in the conspiracy even though he did not have a relationship with all of his fellow coconspirators holding the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it may find the defendant guilty if the jury found the defendant had conspired with the two coconspirators named in the indictment or both of them or others where evidence tended to show a conspiracy between the defendant and some person other than the named coconspirators