United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division
K. MOON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
three-week trial, the jury found Jason Bradley, Nayna Taylor,
and Edward Taylor guilty of conspiracy to distribute
controlled substances and controlled substance analogues
(namely, the synthetic drugs MDPV and a-PVP). The jury also
found Bradley guilty of conspiracies to import drugs and to
launder money. In post-trial motions, these Defendants asked
the Court to acquit them, to grant them a new trial, and to
declare the Federal Analogue Act
unconstitutional. Defendant Bradley also asked for access to
the court reporter's personal audio recording of the
trial. At a hearing on these motions, the Court denied each
and affirmed Defendants' guilt. This opinion explains
Motions for Acquittal
are required to sustain the jury's verdict “if,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government, substantial evidence supports it.”
United States v. Kiza, 855 F.3d 596, 601 (4th Cir.
2017). “Substantial evidence is evidence that a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 525 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Inversely, Fed. R. Crim. P. 29
requires a court, on a defendant's motion, to
“enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which
the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, the
“Court must consider circumstantial as well as direct
evidence, and allow the government the benefit of all
reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought
to be established.” United States v. Cameron,
573 F.3d 179, 183 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Here Defendants moved for acquittal. Because the
Government presented ample evidence to sustain the verdict,
the Court denied Defendants' motions. The following
sections describe the evidence that supports the jury's
verdict and then address Defendants' other specific
Summary of evidence supporting the verdict
Bradley and his wife Deborah Ryba moved to Chicago in 2009,
where they made a living by selling electronic cigarettes
they bought from China. (Dkt. 570 at 17). In late 2010 they
decided to cut out the middle man and move to China to buy
their own electronic cigarette factory. (Id. at
27-34). They stayed in China over a year, but never were able
to find a factory for the right price. (Id.). While
they were still in China in early 2011, one of Ryba's
cousins reached out to them. This cousin, David Scholz, had
heard about synthetic drugs called “bath salts, ”
and he wanted Ryba and Bradley to import these drugs into the
United States so that he could resell them. (Dkt. 570 at
34-37). Ryba and Bradley agreed to buy the drugs Scholz
requested. (Id. at 39). One of these drugs was MDPV.
This drug, according to the government's experts, is
substantially similar to other controlled substances (like
ecstasy) that are scheduled by the federal government. (Dkt.
508-60 at ECF 9-27; dkt. 561 at 33). Bradley investigated the
drug's legality and tried the drug himself. (Dkt. 572 at
25-27; dkt. 573 at 80).
spite of their knowledge about the drugs, Ryba and Bradley
got to work. Ryba contacted a Chinese translator and
negotiated MDPV pricing with factories. (Dkt. 570 at 38; dkt.
474 at 25-30). Bradley acquired samples and sent them back to
Scholz. (Dkt. 570 at 44). Scholz approved of the samples, and
Bradley began sending MDPV back to Scholz in larger
quantities. (Id. at 22, 51; dkt. 573 at 28-29). The
first order, containing a kilogram of MDPV, arrived in the
United States in June 2011. (Dkt. 573 at 41-42). A second
order arrived three months later. (Id.). A third
order containing four kilograms of MDPV followed in late
2011. (Id. at 49-52). Bradley would open up rice
cookers and other consumer goods, put the drugs inside of
them, and then reseal the goods in an attempt to avoid law
enforcement. (Dkt. 570 at 51-52; dkt. 474 at 31). Bradley
would ship the goods through Hong Kong because he believed
the United States scrutinized these shipments less than
packages arriving directly from China. (Dkt. 570 at 51-52).
In return, Scholz wired Bradley money for the drugs. (Dkt.
573 at 28-29).
the United States, Scholz joined with Robert Schroeder and
Ryan Buchanan to distribute MDPV to smoke shops and other
retailers. (Dkt. 532 at 35-36). Schroeder and Buchanan had
prior experience selling MDPV. (Dkt. 573 at 18-22). Scholz,
Schroeder, and Buchanan incorporated their enterprise as
“Modern Day Prophets” in June 2011 and then hired
Nick Purintun and Brian Lister as salesmen. (Dkt. 532 at 36).
Together, these five individuals worked to sell MDPV
throughout the United States. MDPV was sold in unique
packages as “Crystal Bubbly Hookah Cleaner, ” a
recognizable brand created by Ryba and Bradley. (Dkt. 533 at
21-22; dkt. 572 at 31-33; dkt. 573 at 51-52). The salesmen
phoned smoke shops throughout the country and discretely
asked whether they carried “party powder” or
“hookah cleaner.” (Dkt. 533 at 30-31). If the
stores responded positively, Modern Day Prophets would send
samples and look to build a relationship. (Id.). The
salesmen would tell these retailers what traditional drugs
the synthetic drugs mimicked and how to ingest the drugs.
(Id. at 34, 44). These smoke shops passed that
information on to their end users. (Id.).
even as the enterprise took off, legal issues loomed large.
In July 2011, Bradley sent Ryba an email about a DEA bust of
a bath salts ring that was selling MDPV. (Dkt. 570 at 61;
dkt. 507-14). At this point Bradley had been sending
shipments of MDPV to Scholz for two months. (Dkt. 570 at 63).
The article noted how MDPV was designed to mimic the illegal
drug ecstasy. (Dkt. 507-14). Ryba forwarded the article to
Scholz because she was worried that he would get arrested
too. (Dkt. 570 at 65-67). Bradley also knew that customs
officers had stopped some of their packages. (Dkt. 533 at
69). Scholz and others were all using “burner”
phones and treating the enterprise like an illegal drug
dealing business. (Dkt. 573 at 67). When four kilograms of
MDPV arrived in late 2011, the group attempted to get it to
customers quickly because they believed that MDPV was or
would soon become illegal. (Id.).
the flow of drugs back to the United States only increased.
Bradley started investigating a different drug, a-PVP, in
January of 2012. (Dkt. 508-4). This drug, again according to
the Government's experts, is substantially similar to
MDPV. (Dkt. 508-60 at ECF 9-27; dkt. 561 at 33). In February
2012, the co-conspirators purchased twelve kilograms of a-PVP
in one order and seventeen kilograms in another. (Dkt.
508-20; dkt. 572 at 24-25, 37-38; dkt. 573 at 70-74). A fifty
kilogram order came in March. (Dkt. 531 at 28; dkt. 572 at
36). And another order for twenty kilograms of a-PVP
followed. (Dkt. 531 at 31; dkt. 573 at 81-83; dkt. 574 at
29-30). Ryba and Bradley exchanged emails during this time
period acknowledging that the police were prosecuting
individuals for distributing bath salts. Bradley and Ryba
changed their shipping practices to avoid arrest. (Dkt.
507-24; dkt. 474 at 43; dkt. 572 at 9). Bradley timed
shipments so that they would go through customs on the
weekends, when he believed customs would be staffed leanly.
(Dkt. 572 at 24-25). Bradley and Ryba continued putting the
drugs inside purses and rice cookers. (Dkt. 570 at 95-103).
Bradley also instructed Scholz to lie to his bank to disguise
wire transfers. (Dkt. 573 at 57-58). Bradley and Scholz
addressed packages to fake names and companies to protect
themselves. (Dkt. 570 at 89).
and Ryba returned to the United States in June 2012. (Dkt.
570 at 114; dkt. 572 at 27). But selling a-PVP had become too
lucrative to stop altogether, and so Scholz and two other
co-conspirators met with Bradley in June and July of 2012 to
plan a trip to China. (Dkt. 572 at 45; dkt. 574 at 38-39).
Scholz and Schroeder later visited Bradley's apartment
where they gave him $30, 000 in cash. (Dkt. 532 at 17-21;
dkt. 574 at 40). Bradley instructed Ryba to get updated
pricing on the drugs. (Dkt. 572 at 45; dkt. 574 at 50-51,
88). Scholz traveled to China in July 2012. (Dkt. 570 at 115;
dkt. 574 at 45). During this time period, Bradley and Ryba
were worried that Scholz would get caught by the DEA. (Dkt.
474 at 48-49). They circulated articles where individuals
were being arrested for trafficking bath salts. (Dkt. 507-27;
dkt. 570 at 119-121). They became aware of DEA raids on smoke
shops in June 2012. (Dkt. 574 at 34-35).
business was booming through the first half of 2012. One of
the salesmen, Brian Lister, was selling hundreds of packets a
week during April, May, and June of 2012. (Dkt. 533 at 45).
In June 2012, some of the Modern Day Prophet co-conspirators
reorganized under the name “Platinum Prophet” and
moved to Atlanta. (Id. at 55-60; dkt. 474 at 49).
One customer in Atlanta made three purchases for a combined
$150, 000. (Dkt. 533 at 55). Another, Chris Kaestner in
Harrisonburg was buying a-PVP in bulk throughout this period.
(Dkt. 573 at 61-64). One substantial client was Queen City
Smokes and Novelties in Charlotte. This smoke shop was owned
by Nayna Taylor. (Dkt. 533 at 44-53). Brian Lister, the
salesman, talked to her on the phone between fifteen and
twenty times. (Id. at 72). Between one and two
thousand of the packets of Crystal Bubbly Hookah Cleaner went
to her store. (Id. at 46-48). One order in May 2012
was for 100 packets of a-PVP. (Dkt. 508-44 at 2; dkt. 574 at
25-26). She had another order in June 2012 and traveled to
Atlanta three or four times to purchase a-PVP, at least twice
by helicopter. (Dkt. 574 at 26, 47, 52). Scholz and Schroeder
returned to Chicago and repaid Bradley from the money they
had earned in Atlanta. (Id. at 58).
slowed after the conspirators returned from Atlanta. They no
longer had a-PVP to sell. (Dkt. 531 at 42). Schroeder tried
to find other suppliers without luck. (Dkt. 574 at 61-62).
While they struggled to import more a-PVP, the massive amount
of a-PVP that they had pushed out to their distributors (like
Nayna Taylor in Charlotte) was being sold to end users
throughout 2013. The DEA organized a controlled buy at Queen
City Smokes and Novelties in Charlotte because they suspected
it was selling a-PVP. (Dkt. 534 at 7-8). During the ensuing
search, the DEA found Crystal Bubbly Hookah Cleaner packets
for sale in the store. (Id. at 35).
and Scholz reinitiated contact with Bradley in 2014. (Dkt.
534 at 63-64; dkt. 570 at 126-128). They set up a meeting to
talk about acquiring more a-PVP in August or September of
2014. (Dkt. 574 at 66). Schroeder, Scholz, and
Bradley researched the law together and decided to move
forward in October. (Dkt. 474 at 55-56; dkt. 532 at 22-28;
dkt. 574 at 80-84). Bradley and Ryba returned to Asia to buy
a-PVP in November 2014. (Dkt. 570 at 129-130). One package
was stopped in customs, but Schroeder and Scholz received two
kilograms of a-PVP from Bradley. (Dkt. 532 at 29-30; dkt. 570
at 137; dkt. 574 at 90). Schroeder and Scholz distributed
this a-PVP to Nayna and Edward Taylor in Charlotte, Chris
Kaestner in Harrisonburg, and others. (Dkt. 574 at 94). The
smoke shops then resold this a-PVP. In June 2015, an
informant contacted Nayna Taylor to buy 200 packets of a-PVP.
(Dkt. 535 at 7). Nayna and Edward Taylor arrived at the
controlled buy and sold the a-PVP packets to the informant.
(Id. at 15-20). The Taylors were then arrested
again. (Id.). Shortly thereafter, law enforcement
arrested all of the other co-conspirators. (Dkt. 510 at 143).
The conspiracy was over.
Analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence
this mass of evidence, Defendants argued generally that the
evidence was insufficient for the jury to convict them.
Defendants also argued more specifically that there was
insufficient evidence: (1) that they agreed to form a
conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, (2) that they
knew they were distributing controlled substances, and (3)
that they had committed a crime in the Western District of
Virginia. I take each argument in turn, but find that the
jury's verdict is amply supported by the evidence. After
reviewing the evidence and the crimes charged, I also reject
Defendants' more general argument for acquittal.
Evidence establishing Defendants conspired to distribute
challenged whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury
to find that they conspired to distribute controlled
substances under the Controlled Substances Act and the
Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement Act (the Analogue
Act). Under either act, the Government must establish beyond
a reasonable doubt that: “(1) an agreement to
distribute and possess [the controlled substance or
controlled substance analogue] with intent to distribute
existed between two or more persons; (2) the defendant knew
of the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant knowingly and
voluntarily became a part of this conspiracy.”
United States v. Yearwood, 518 F.3d 220, 225-26 (4th
Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). When proving
the first element under the Analogue Act, the Government must
additionally prove that the relevant substance is a
controlled substance analogue. Under the second element,
knowledge of the conspiracy requires the Defendants'
knowledge that they were dealing with “controlled
substances.” See McFadden v. United States,
135 S.Ct. 2298, 2302 (2015). Evidence establishing this
knowledge is reviewed in the next section. This section
focuses on the first and third elements-whether a conspiracy
existed and whether Defendants entered into that conspiracy.
evidence of conspiracies is rare; the elements are usually
proven by circumstantial evidence. Yearwood, 518
F.3d at 26. “Circumstantial evidence tending to prove a
conspiracy may consist of a defendant's relationship with
other members of the conspiracy, the length of this
association, the defendant's attitude and conduct, and
the nature of the conspiracy.” United States v.
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 1996) (internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted). A defendant's
intent to form a conspiracy can be inferred from “the
regularity and volume of dealings” even if that
defendant engages in “similar large scale distribution
functions in separate localities without specific knowledge
of the existence or numbers of such other persons and
localities.” United States v. Burman, 584 F.2d
1354, 1356-57 (4th Cir. 1978).
Government presented ample evidence that Bradley conspired to
distribute controlled substances and controlled substance
analogues. As recounted above, Bradley repeatedly
sent MDPV into the United States with the knowledge that
Scholz and others would redistribute it to end users. The
shipments of MDPV occurred in 2011, both before and after
MDPV was scheduled. (Dkt. 570 at 66; dkt. 572 at 21; dkt. 573
at 67). In 2012, Bradley also worked with his co-conspirators
to import a-PVP with the understanding that they would resell
it to their customers, and that he would be paid. Bradley
specifically objects that there was insufficient evidence
that he was involved in the conspiracy's operations in
late 2014. But Bradley met with co-conspirators Schroeder and
Scholz to discuss obtaining controlled substances from China
in this period. (Dkt. 532 at 22-28; dkt. 534 at 63-64; dkt.
574 at 55-56, 80-84). The Government presented evidence that
Bradley was paid by the co-conspirators for his help in
connecting them with translators and producers in China.
(Dkt. 570 at 129-130).
generally, conspiracy is a “continuing offense”
and “a defendant who has joined a conspiracy continues
to violate the law ‘through every moment of [the
conspiracy's] existence, ' and he becomes responsible
for the acts of his co-conspirators in pursuit of their
common plot.” Smith v. United States, 568 U.S.
106, 111 (2013) (internal citations omitted)). And Bradley
never withdrew from this continuing enterprise. See
United States v. Urbanik, 801 F.2d 692, 697 (4th Cir.
1986) (“Withdrawal must be shown by evidence that the
former conspirator acted to defeat or disavow the purposes of
the conspiracy.”). The Government presented sufficient
evidence for the jury to find that Bradley was part of a
conspiracy to import and distribute MDPV and a-PVP before and
after they were scheduled.
evidence that the Taylors conspired to distribute a-PVP is
also substantial. Brian Lister testified about the fifteen to
twenty conversations about bath salts he had with Nayna
Taylor starting in late 2011. (Dkt. 533 at 72). Between one
and two thousand of the packets went to her store.
(Id. at 46-48). Emails showed orders in May 2012 for
100 packets of a-PVP. (Dkt. 508-44 at 2; dkt. 574 at 25-26).
She had a follow up order in June 2012. (Dkt. 574 at 26). She
traveled to Atlanta three or four times to purchase a-PVP, at
least twice by helicopter. (Id. at 47, 52). In 2013,
the DEA set up a controlled buy at Queen City Smokes and
Novelties in Charlotte because they suspected that Nayna
Taylor was selling bath salts. (Dkt. 534 at 7-8). After the
controlled buy, the DEA tested the products, found that they
contained a-PVP, and got search warrants. (Id. at
8). During the ensuing search, the DEA found more Crystal
Bubbly Hookah Cleaner packets. (Id. at 35). Nayna
Taylor, even after this arrest, continued selling a-PVP.
Schroeder sent Nayna Taylor more a-PVP in 2014. (Dkt. 574 at
94). The smoke shop continued selling it, and in June 2015 a
confidential informant placed a call to Nayna Taylor to buy
200 packets of a-PVP for a biker rally. (Dkt. 535 at 7).
Edward Taylor confirmed the location of this purchase and the
quantity of a-PVP packets to be sold. (Gov't Exhibit
101). Nayna and Edward Taylor arrived at the controlled buy
and exchanged the Crystal Bubbly Hookah Cleaner packets to
the informant. (Dkt. 535 at 15-20). They were then arrested.
(Id.). This was sufficient evidence for the jury to
find that Nayna Taylor trafficked a-PVP both before and after
it was scheduled. And this was also sufficient evidence for
the jury to find that Edward Taylor trafficked a-PVP after it
was scheduled (although not before).
there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Nayna
Taylor conspired to traffic MDPV. Robert Schroeder testified
Nayna Taylor bought Crystal Bubbly Hookah Cleaner as early as
the end of 2011. (Dkt. 574 at 51). Modern Day Prophet was
still selling MDPV in Crystal Bubbly Hookah Cleaner packets
at the end of 2011. (Dkt. 573 at 67). While there was
insufficient evidence for the jury to find that Edward Taylor
conspired to distribute MDPV, his conviction, as stated
above, was amply supported the a-PVP conspiracy.
Taylors separately argue that they were not part of the same
conspiracy as their co-defendants and that they had a mere
“buyer-seller” relationship with the
conspirators. One conspiracy exists when there is “one
overall agreement.” United States v. Leavis,
853 F.2d 215, 218 (4th Cir. 1988). “Whether there is a
single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies depends upon the
overlap of key actors, methods, and goals.”
Id.; United States v. Jones, 858 F.3d 221,
226 (4th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e look to the degree of
overlap not the degree of similarity to determine whether two
charges are in reality a single offense.”). And the
scope of dealings with a co-conspirator can be sufficient to
alert a defendant to the scope of a conspiracy beyond their
immediate dealings. United States v. Richards, 737
F.2d 1307, 1309 (4th Cir. 1984). This principle is considered
alongside the “buyer-seller” defense, which is
valid when “there was no agreement to participate in
the drug distribution operation, ” and “the
defendant's participation was limited to fulfilling and
facilitating his or her own personal drug consumption
needs.” United States v. Leonard, 777
F.Supp.2d 1025, 1034 (W.D. Va. 2011).
Taylor's repeated purchases of Crystal Bubbly Hookah
Cleaner and the Taylors' 2015 sale of a-PVP created
sufficient overlap with the general conspiracy. Nayna Taylor
repeatedly bought large quantities of Crystal Bubbly Hookah
Cleaner and then resold these drugs from her smoke shop.
(Dkt. 533 at 44; dkt. 574 at 94). She continued doing this
even after her store and home were raided in 2013. (Dkt. 535
at 7). Likewise, Edward Taylor assisted Nayna Taylor with the
2015 sale after the 2013 raid. (Dkt. 534 at 7-9). He drove
her to resell Crystal Bubbly Hookah Cleaner to the government
informant. (Dkt. 535 at 7). On the way to the sale, Edward
Taylor spoke to the informant and confirmed location of the
sale and quantity of packets to be sold. (Gov't Exhibit
101). After he had been arrested, he nevertheless invented a
story about making the trip to sell glass jewelry cases.
(Dkt. 535 at 34). The jury was entitled to infer that Edward
Taylor knew what he was doing; this fabrication provided
further evidence of his intent to join the conspiracy.
Taylors were more than mere buyers acquiring Crystal Bubbly
Hookah Cleaner for their “own personal drug consumption
needs.” Leonard, 777 F.Supp.2d at 1034.
Instead, they were sophisticated distributors of the drug,
evidenced by the detailed records of sales and large amount
of money involved. (Dkt. 534 at 18-20 and 25-27).
Furthermore, a buyer-seller relationship can still be
sufficient to sustain a conspiracy charge when combined with
other factors. See United States v. Yearwood, 518
F.3d 220, 226 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[E]vidence of such a
relationship, when combined with evidence of a substantial
quantity of drugs-as here- ‘would support a reasonable
inference that the parties were coconspirators.'”).
The overarching conspiracy involving Bradley, Ryba, and
Modern Day Prophet required smoke shops to sell the imported
drugs to end users. Edward and Nayna Taylor joined this
overarching conspiracy by buying and distributing large
volumes of drugs.
summary, the evidence was sufficient to establish that Jason
Bradley and Nayna Taylor entered into a conspiracy to
distribute both scheduled controlled substances and
controlled substance analogues. The evidence was also
sufficient to establish that Edward Bradley entered into a
conspiracy to distribute scheduled controlled substances.
Accordingly, the motions for acquittal on these grounds were
Evidence of knowledge that a-PVP and MDPV were controlled
argue that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to
find that Defendants knew they were dealing with
“controlled substances.” The requisite mental
state for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and
controlled substance analogues was recently addressed in
McFadden v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2298 (2015).
The Supreme Court held that “the Government must prove
that a defendant knew that the substance with which he was
dealing was ‘a controlled substance, ' even in
prosecutions involving an analogue.” 135 S.Ct. at 2305.
This “knowledge requirement can be established in two
ways.” Id. “First, it can be established
by evidence that a defendant knew that the substance with
which he was dealing is some controlled substance-that is,
one actually listed on the federal drug schedules or treated
as such by operation of the Analogue Act-regardless of
whether he knew the particular identity of the
substance.” Id. “Second, it can be
established by evidence that the defendant knew the specific
analogue he was dealing with, even if he did not know its
legal status as an analogue.” Id. “Under
this second method of proof, knowledge of the substance's
chemical structure and physiological effects is sufficient to
support a conviction.” United States v.
McFadden, 823 F.3d 217, 223 (4th Cir. 2016), cert.
denied, 137 S.Ct. 1434 (2017).
the defendants in McFadden, Defendants here were
convicted of violations based on both the Controlled
Substance Act and the Analogue Act. The Government presented
sufficient evidence that Defendants possessed the requisite
knowledge by establishing that each “defendant knew
that the substance with which he was dealing [was] some
controlled substance-that is, one actually listed on the
federal drug schedules or treated as such by operation of the
Analogue Act . . . .” McFadden, 135 S.Ct. at
2305. On remand in McFadden, the Fourth Circuit
stated that a “jury could have inferred from
McFadden's evasive behavior and the
‘disclaimer' labeling of the packages and vials
that he knew that the bath salts were treated as controlled
substances.” 823 F.3d 217, 226 (4th Cir. 2016),
cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1434 (2017). All three
Defendants here engaged in similarly evasive behavior that
provided the jury with enough evidence to make the inference
that Defendants knew the bath salts were treated as
evidence of Bradley's knowledge that MDPV and a-PVP were
controlled substances is substantial. Bradley engaged in
evasive behavior to hide these drugs from law enforcement.
Bradley put the drugs in rice cookers and commercial goods
before shipping them in an attempt to hide them from customs
officials. (Dkt. 474 at 31; dkt. 572 at 23-24; dkt. 573 at
32-33). Bradley sent the packages to fabricated names and
businesses to further avoid law enforcement. (Dkt. 474 at 41;
dkt. 570 at 89; dkt. 572 at 42; dkt. 573 at 50). He told his
co-conspirators to falsify electronic transfers of money to
avoid suspicion. (Dkt. 573 at 58). He prevented his
co-conspirators from bringing their cell phones near him out
of a fear of wiretaps. (Dkt. 574 at 40-41). He required one
co-conspirator to only talk to him on a “burner”
phone. (Id. at 89). He put “not for human