AR-AB + OBH Indicment

Case 2:18-cr-00249-MMB Document 462 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 48
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
v. : CRIMINAL NO. 18-249
ABDUL IBRAHIM WEST, et al. :
GOVERNMENT’S TRIAL MEMORANDUM
The United States, by and through its attorneys, William M. McSwain, United States
Attorney in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Everett M. Witherell and Timothy
M. Stengel, Assistant United States Attorneys for the District, hereby submits the following Trial
Memorandum in advance of a trial beginning on November 4, 2019.
I. INTRODUCTION
The defendants are members of a violent drug trafficking organization known as the
Original Block Hustlers or “OBH.” From at least March 2017 until June 2018, the defendants
conspired to distribute, and did distribute, large quantities of narcotics in and around North
Philadelphia. They imported drugs from California, stored and prepared those drugs for sale in
various properties they controlled, and then sold those drugs in both bulk and street-level
transactions.
II. CHARGES
On August 14, 2019, a federal grand jury returned a sixteen-count Second Superseding
Indictment, charging defendants ABDUL IBRAHIM WEST, JAMAAL BLANDING, JAMEEL
HICKSON, RICHARD CHASE HOOVER, AMIR BOYER, DARYL BAKER, and HANS
GADSON with conspiracy to distribute 5 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance

containing a detectable amount of cocaine, 280 grams or more of a mixture and substance
containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (“crack”), 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine (actual), and 100 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a
detectable amount of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count One), as well as substantive
offenses. 1 In addition, defendants WEST, BLANDING, HICKSON, HOOVER, BOYER,
BAKER, and GADSON are charged with possession with intent to distribute 28 grams or more
of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (crack”), 100 grams
or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of heroin, and a mixture and
substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and aiding and abetting, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C § 2 (Count Six).
Defendants WEST, BLANDING, HICKSON, and HOOVER are charged with possession with
intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable
amount of cocaine and 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, and aiding and abetting, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C § 2 (Count Twelve).
In addition, defendant WEST is charged with aiding and abetting the distribution of a
mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count Four), and aiding and abetting the
distribution of 28 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of
cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count
Five).
1
Defendant Dontez Stewart was also charged in the conspiracy and certain substantive offenses, but he has pled
guilty. In addition, defendant Dennis Harmon was charged in a substantive offense, but he also pled guilty.
2
Defendant BLANDING is also charged with aiding and abetting the distribution of 50
grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18
U.S.C. § 2 (Count Eleven).
Defendant AMIR BOYER is also charged with possession with intent to distribute a
mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (Count Thirteen), possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count Fourteen), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of the drug
trafficking crime charged in Count Thirteen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count
Fifteen).
Defendant DARYL BAKER is also charged with possession with intent to distribute 28
grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base
(“crack”) and a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C) (Count Seven), and possession of a firearm by a
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count Sixteen).
III. SUMMARY OF THE CASE
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been involved in an ongoing investigation of a
violent drug organization known as the Original Block Hustlers (“OBH”) being run by defendant
Abdul West. From at least March 2017 until June 2018, defendant West, along with numerous
OBH associates, including but not limited to, defendants Jamaal Blanding, Jameel Hickson,
Richard Chase Hoover, Amir Boyer, Daryl Baker, and Hans Gadson conspired together to
distribute large quantities of cocaine, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin to customers
in and around Philadelphia. Jamaal Blanding, Jameel Hickson, and Richard Chase Hoover
3
were primarily responsible for facilitating the importation of narcotics from California.
Blanding also distributed narcotics in and around Philadelphia, as did defendants Amir Boyer,
Daryl Baker, and Hans Gadson.
To facilitate their drug trafficking, the defendants maintained and/or used at least four
properties in Philadelphia:
• 3234 N. Sydenham Street (known to members of OBH, and herein referred to, as
“the Mansion”);
• Apartment 1806 of the Penn Treaty Penthouses, located at 1 Brown Street (“1
Brown Street”);
• Apartment 219 of the Edgewater Apartments, located at 2323 Race Street (“2323
Race Street”); and
• Apartment 717 of One Water Street Apartments, located at 250 N. Columbus

Boulevard (“250 N. Columbus Blvd.”).
The defendants also used violence and threats of violence, often delivered through social
media, to protect and further their drug trafficking activities. Throughout the conspiracy, the
defendants communicated extensively with each other – and others – through text messages and
social media. These text messages and social media posts, many of which will be presented at
trial, documented the defendants’ illicit activities and firmly establish the nature of their
relationship as co-conspirators.
A. Overview of the FBI Investigation into OBH
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been investigating OBH since at least spring of
2017. The FBI investigation included, among other things, controlled purchases of narcotics,
surveillance of properties used to store and distribute drugs, surveillance of OBH’s trips to
4
California for the purpose of importing drugs to Philadelphia, the review and analysis of phone
and social media records, and interviews of witnesses.
The federal investigation started with several controlled purchases of narcotics from co-
conspirator Dontez Stewart. 2 During those controlled purchases, Stewart obtained crack
cocaine from West which Stewart then sold to a confidential informant. During one such
meeting, Stewart and West met at a property at 3234 N. Sydenham Street, referred to as “the
Mansion” by the defendants. Subsequently, the FBI installed a pole camera outside the
Mansion in August 2017, and over the next several weeks, the FBI observed the defendants’
routine use of the Mansion.
On September 11, 2017, the Philadelphia Police Department, acting independently of the
FBI, executed a search warrant at the Mansion. This search was part of an investigation into
the shooting of a man named Sherman Williams, which occurred at 2762 N. 22nd Street (22nd
and Lehigh Streets). 3 A witness to the shooting observed an individual believed to be the
shooter fleeing the scene in a white Jeep Cherokee with PA registration JYD-0709. The police
determined that the white Jeep Cherokee was registered to Abdul West at 3234 N. Sydenham
Street, which is the address of the Mansion, and at approximately 6:46 p.m., Officers Charles
2
Specifically, the FBI used confidential informants (“CIs”) to purchase crack from Stewart on May 1, 2017, June 6,
2017, June 22, 2017, and August 17, 2017. On October 19, 2017, a CI purchased both crack and
methamphetamine, as well as a firearm, from Stewart. The FBI also used a CI to purchase 53.82 grams of
methamphetamine on December 13, 2017 from an associate of Jamaal Blanding, and the government will present
evidence that Jamaal Blanding supplied that methamphetamine. These controlled purchases, as well as others that
occurred during the conspiracy are admissible at trial as drug sales conducted during the course of a conspiracy,
even when they did not involve all defendants. They are admissible against all defendants to prove the nature and
extent of the conspiracy, because each conspirator is liable for the acts of his co-conspirators, undertaken during and
in furtherance of the conspiracy, even when he was not aware of the actions of his co-conspirators. See United
States v. Johnston, 353 F.3d 617, 624 (8th Cir. 2003).
3
Subsequently, Williams died and OBH associate, Abbas Parker, was charged with his murder. Parker is not
charged in the instant federal case.
5
Rillera and Ralph Nelson, who were at the scene of the shooting, traveled to the 3200 block of
Sydenham Street to investigate. There, they observed the white Jeep Cherokee parked near the
Mansion.
The officers also observed a group of males, including many of the defendants charged in
the instant case, standing outside of the Mansion, and the group immediately dispersed as
officers began to look for weapons and other evidence in the vicinity of the property. Officers
located a set of keys, belonging to the white Jeep, on the curb outside the Mansion. The
witness was brought from the scene of the shooting to the 3200 block of N. Sydenham Street,
and he/she positively identified the white Jeep as the same vehicle that the witness had seen
fleeing the scene of the shooting.
At approximately 6:55 p.m., defendant Dennis Harmon was seen leaving the Mansion,
and he was questioned by responding officers. Among other things, Harmon stated that he
lived at the residence alone and that no one else lived there. Harmon further stated that he was
a “squatter” and that he had been staying at the residence for approximately three months.
Harmon was questioned as to who owned the white Jeep Cherokee parked outside the residence
and Harmon stated that he did not know. When officers informed him that the vehicle was
registered to the address at which he claimed he was squatting, Harmon restated that he was the
only one that lived at the residence.
A search warrant was obtained for the Mansion, and numerous items related to drug
trafficking were seized, including but not limited to, approximately 62 grams of crack cocaine,
6
229 grams of heroin, 48 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, and a firearm. 4 The officers
also located and seized $8,101.00 in United States Currency.
In addition to the white Jeep seen leaving the scene of the shooting and later found
outside the Mansion, a Chevrolet Impala was also parked outside the property. Although this
Impala was also registered to West, the pole camera showed co-conspirator Daryl Baker using
the Impala leading up to and on September 11, 2017. In fact, in the pole camera footage from
September 11, 2017, Baker can be seen getting into the Impala while carrying a small black bag.
When he got out of the Impala, he did not have the bag. Following the search of the Mansion
on September 11, the Impala was also searched pursuant to a state search warrant. This same
vehicle was searched again approximately a year later pursuant to a federal search warrant, and a
black bag containing cocaine and crack cocaine was found hidden in a secret compartment. 5
Agents later obtained text messages and social media posts, which will be presented at
trial, confirming that the defendants used the Mansion as a “trap house” – i.e., a property used to
sell drugs. For example, shortly after police executed the search warrant on September 11,
several of the defendants discussed via a group text that the Mansion had been searched by
police. Additionally, in one social media post, West posted a photograph of himself outside the
Mansion and included in the comment field an express reference to his “trap house.”
During the course of the investigation, the FBI determined that defendant Richard Chase
Hoover, an OBH associate, maintained a commercial driver’s license and that he was associated
with an organization called Team Transportation LLC in Las Vegas. Agents also learned that a
4
These narcotics are charged in Count Six of the Second Superseding Indictment.
5
These narcotics are charged in Count Seven of the Second Superseding Indictment.
7
red Volvo truck tractor was registered to Team Transportation. Agents then obtained a pen
register trap and trace for Hoover’s phone, and on November 2, 2017, that pen register indicated
that Hoover was traveling from Philadelphia to Los Angeles.
Upon Hoover’s return on November 20, 2017, agents established surveillance and
followed Hoover to an apartment located at 1 Brown Street in Philadelphia. Agents observed
Hoover enter 1 Brown Street carrying a black backpack and then observed him leave a few
minutes later without the backpack. Agents later learned that defendant Jameel Hickson lived
at 1 Brown Street, and a subsequent review of Hickson’s phone records showed contacts
between Hickson, and West and Hoover. Agents also learned that Hickson and Blanding were
in Los Angeles at the same time as Hoover.
Over the next several months, agents tracked Hoover, Hickson, and Blanding as the three
men traveled to Los Angeles and then back to Philadelphia. In total, the three defendants made
six trips, at the rate of approximately one trip per month. Hoover drove the red Volvo truck
from Philadelphia to Los Angeles. Blanding and Hickson then flew to Los Angeles, where they
met Hoover. All three then traveled back to Philadelphia. As detailed further below, after the
sixth trip, the FBI executed a search warrant at a property controlled by OBH. During the
search, agents found Hoover, along with approximately 10 kilograms of cocaine and five pounds
of methamphetamine. 6
6
At the time of execution of the search warrant, defendant Hoover was the only individual inside the apartment.
Hoover was arrested and subsequently charged in the initial indictment in this case.
8
B. Trips to Los Angeles
On six separate occasions, between November 2, 2017 and May 17, 2018, defendants
Blanding, Hickson, and Hoover traveled to Los Angeles to obtain bulk quantities of narcotics for
distribution in Philadelphia. Hoover, who had a commercial driver’s license and a tractor
trailer, drove to Los Angeles. Blanding and Hickson flew. The three men then convened in
Los Angeles, obtained narcotics, and Hoover drove those narcotics to Philadelphia. After
arriving in Philadelphia, Hoover took the drugs to one of various stash houses, where he was met
by other members of OBH.
1. Trip #1 – November 2, 2017 to November 20, 2017
On November 2, 2017, Hoover left Philadelphia in his red Volvo tractor truck and drove
west to Los Angeles. Blanding and Hickson flew from Philadelphia to Los Angeles on or
around November 12, 2017. During this trip, they communicated with each other by phone and
text message. Cellsite location information also showed the three of them in the same area of
Los Angeles during the trip.
The three defendants then left Los Angeles and returned to Philadelphia. Blanding and
Hickson flew to Philadelphia on or around November 16, 2017, and Hoover drove back, arriving
on November 20, 2017. Upon his arrival in the Philadelphia area, agents followed Hoover to a
truck lot near 3600 Lawrence Street. There, agents observed Hoover move bags from his
Volvo truck to his white Chevrolet Trailblazer, which he then drove to Hickson’s apartment
complex located at 1 Brown Street in Philadelphia. Agents observed Hoover carrying a
backpack into the complex and then leaving a short while later without the backpack.
9
A security officer with 1 Brown Street provided the FBI with surveillance video from the
apartment complex showing Hoover entering apartment 1806, which was the apartment in which
Hickson lived. Security also provided the FBI with Hickon’s phone number. Approximately
two weeks later, Abdul West posted a picture of himself with Hickson standing outside 1 Brown
Street. The photograph was captioned: “Boss Talk Amongst Bosses… #NewInvestments
#CommercialProperty #ObhRecords.”
2. Trip #2 – December 12, 2017 to December 22, 2017
On December 12, 2017, Hoover again drove from Philadelphia to Los Angeles, arriving
on December 15, 2017. Blanding and Hickson flew from Philadelphia to Los Angeles on or
around December 16. On December 17, Blanding posted a photograph of himself and Hickson.
The location was listed as Los Angeles and the caption read, “I’ll Make It Snow In LA…,” a
likely reference to cocaine. In another post, dated December 17, and with a location of “Rodeo
Drive,” Blanding posted a photograph of himself, captioned, “On the Block Trapping!”
“Trapping” is a term commonly used by drug traffickers to discuss selling drugs to customers.
A few days later, the three of them returned to Philadelphia. Blanding and Hickson flew
on or around December 20, and Hoover drove back to Philadelphia, arriving on December 22.
When Hoover returned to Philadelphia, agents again followed him to the same truck lot on
Lawrence Street at which Hoover was observed after the prior trip. Hoover was seen moving
bags around the cabin of this truck and then loading bags into his white Chevrolet Trailblazer,
which he then drove to the Edgewater Apartments located at 2323 Race Street. West and
Hoover were then observed entering the apartment complex together. Approximately two
hours after they arrived, Hoover left the apartment. West left approximately an hour after that.
10
Jamaal Blanding and Amir Boyer were also at 2323 Race Street that day to meet Hoover. Hans
Gadson came to the apartment the following day.
Notably, 2323 Race Street was rented under the name Tabitha Bishop, as reflected in a
North Carolina driver’s license kept on file with the management of 2323 Race Street. This
driver’s license was a fake. Tabitha Bishop, to the extent she exists, did not live at 2323 Race
Street. However, Robbie Johnson, who was murdered at the behest of Abdul West on October
14, 2017, did live there before he was killed. After Robbie Johnson was murdered, the
defendants started using the apartment to facilitate their drug trafficking, and at trial, the
government will introduce evidence establishing their use of the apartment. For example, on
December 8, 2017, Blanding and Boyer discussed by text message signing Tabitha Bishop’s
name. Although they did not specify what they were signing, the clear reference to Tabitha
Bishop, a demonstratively false identity associated with 2323 Race Street, ties them to that
apartment.
3. Trip #3 – January 19, 2018 to January 31, 2018
Blanding, Hickson, and Hoover again went to Los Angeles in January 2018. On
January 19, Hoover left Philadelphia, arriving in Los Angeles on January 22. Blanding and
Hickson flew to Los Angeles on January 24. On this trip, agents accompanied the three
defendants.
While in Los Angeles, the FBI conducted surveillance. On January 26, agents observed
Hickson arrive at the Line Hotel in a rented Ford Explorer. The agents then video-recorded
Hickson as he moved what appeared to be a brick of narcotics from a box to a bag, which he then
carried into the hotel. Approximately an hour later, Hickson and Blanding left the hotel
11
together and drove away in the Ford Explorer. Cellsite location information showed that
Hoover started driving back toward Philadelphia mere hours later.
Blanding and Hickson flew to Philadelphia on January 27, and Hoover arrived by truck
on January 31. He first went to the truck lot on Lawrence Street. There, Hoover was observed
moving items around the cabin of his truck, after which he carried two bags to his Chevrolet
Trailblazer and then drove to the apartment at 2323 Race Street.
Around the same time, West was observed entering 2323 Race Street. Hoover arrived
shortly after and carried the two bags he had placed in his Trailblazer into the apartment.
Gadson was observed entering the apartment approximately two hours after that. West and
Baker were then observed leaving 2323 Race Street about 30 minutes after Gadson arrived.
Blanding was also in the vicinity of 2323 Race Street that day, and Boyer was there the
following day, according to historical cellsite location information obtained by the FBI.
4. Trip #4 – February 20, 2018 to March 4, 2018
On February 20, 2018, Hoover again drove west from Philadelphia to Los Angeles,
arriving on February 24. Blanding and Hickson flew to Los Angeles on February 23.
Blanding and Hickson flew back to Philadelphia on February 28 and March 1, respectively.
During this trip, Hoover, Hickson, and Blanding remained in contact with each other and with
their coconspirators in Philadelphia. For example, on February 25, 2018, Hickson texted to
Boyer a photograph of himself wearing an OBH hat and he told Boyer to get his “weight up”
because there was “$ to be made.”
Hoover returned to Philadelphia on March 4 and was met at the truck lot on Lawrence
Street by West and Blanding. The three of them then went together to 2323 Race Street, and
12
agents video-recorded Hoover unloading several bags and carrying them into the apartment.
Hoover left the apartment approximately an hour later, carrying nothing. Gadson was observed
arriving at 2323 Race Street shortly after Hoover, West, and Blanding, and he stayed for
approximately 30 minutes. Cellsite location information places Boyer at or around 2323 Race
Street two days later, on March 6.
5. Trip #5 – March 27, 2018 to April 9, 2018
Blanding, Hickson, and Hoover’s next trip to Los Angeles was less than a month later.
On March 27, 2018, Hoover left Philadelphia, and arrived in Los Angeles on March 30.
Blanding and Hickson flew to Las Vegas on March 30 and then drove to Los Angeles.
Blanding and Hickson then returned to Las Vegas and flew from Las Vegas to Philadelphia on
April 2. Hoover returned to Philadelphia on April 9, and again, he was met at the truck lot on
Lawrence Street by West and Blanding, after which they went to 2323 Race Street. Hoover
was again observed carrying bags out of his Volvo truck. This time, however, he placed the
bags in West’s vehicle. West then drove Hoover, with Blanding following them, to 2323 Race
Street. The three defendants then went into the apartment with Hoover carrying the bags. A
few hours later, agents detected the odor of cocaine being “cooked” into crack cocaine coming
from apartment 219. West was then observed leaving the apartment complex. Boyer was also
observed at 2323 Race Street around that time.
6. Trip #6 – May 4, 2018 to May 16, 2018
On May 3, 2018, Hoover was observed outside One Water Street Apartments at 250 N.
Columbus Blvd. in Philadelphia. Agents interviewed the management of that apartment
complex and learned that a “DeAngelo Smith” from California recently rented an apartment
13
there and that “DeAngelo Smith” had informed management that “Chase Hoover” would be
picking up the keys. This was notable to the agents because Hoover’s full name is “Richard
Chase Hoover.” After agents confirmed that the “DeAngelo Smith” identification provided to
One Water management was false, and they learned that the management at 2323 Race Street
had started eviction proceedings against the apartment being used by OBH, agents suspected that
the defendants were transitioning from one stash house location to another.
The next day, on May 4, 2018, Hoover again left Philadelphia and headed west toward
Los Angeles. Blanding and Hickson followed by plane five days later. Agents again
conducted surveillance in Los Angeles, where they observed Hoover carrying a large duffel bag
to his truck. Immediately after carrying the bag to his truck, Hoover met with Hickson at a 7-
Eleven nearby.
Blanding and Hickson then flew back to Philadelphia on May 11 and May 12, 2018,
respectively. On May 11, a GPS tracker on Hoover’s Volvo truck showed that he was traveling
east toward Philadelphia. Agents then obtained an anticipatory search warrant to search either
2323 Race Street or 250 N. Columbus Blvd., depending on whether Hoover was observed at one
of those addresses carrying containers large enough to contain kilogram quantities of narcotics.
On May 16, Hoover arrived in Philadelphia. He first went to the truck lot on Lawrence
Street and then to 250 N. Columbus Blvd. where he was met by Blanding. The two of them
were captured on video entering the apartment complex, and in the video, Blanding can be seen
unlocking the door to apartment 717. At the time, Hoover was carrying bags large enough to
carry kilogram quantities of narcotics.
14
Given that the condition for the search was met, in the early morning hours of May 17,
2018, the FBI executed a search warrant at 250 N. Columbus Blvd., during which they found
approximately ten kilograms of cocaine and five pounds of methamphetamine. Hoover was the
only one in the apartment at the time. Jamaal Blanding was later observed leaving 250 N.
Columbus Blvd., at which time he went to Hickson’s apartment at 1 Brown Street before
returning to 250 N. Columbus Blvd.
West, who is an aspiring rap music artist, subsequently recorded a rap video, which the
government will offer into evidence. The lyrics to the song he recorded referenced the events
of May 17, stating: “Quarter million loss, got a broke heart. And they snatched my dog that’s
the worst part. One rat destroy everything you work for. I pray to god that he don’t tell them
who he work for . . . I woke up broke, they took 10 of ‘em.” The ten kilograms of cocaine and
the 5 pounds of methamphetamine seized from 250 N. Columbus Blvd. serve as the basis for
Count Twelve of the Second Superseding Indictment, with which co-conspirators West,
Blanding, Hickson, and Hoover are charged.
Subsequently on October 17, 2018, defendants Abdul West, Jamaal Blanding, Jameel
Hickson, Amir Boyer, and Daryl Baker were arrested pursuant to federal arrest warrants.
Agents attempted to arrest co-conspirator Hans Gadson, however, he fled to Los Angeles and
was arrested there several months later.
Boyer was arrested at the Mansion, where he had been living. During his arrest, federal
authorities seized approximately twenty pounds of marijuana and a firearm. Boyer, a
previously convicted felon, is charged in Counts Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen of the Second
Superseding Indictment with crimes related to his possession of marijuana and a firearm.
15
Defendant Daryl Baker has also been charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
in Count Sixteen of the Second Superseding Indictment.
IV. STATUTES CHARGED AND ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSES
A. 21 U.S.C. § 846 - Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine/Cocaine Base

(“Crack”)/Methamphetamine/Heroin (Count One)
To establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, as charged in Count One of the Second
Superseding Indictment, the government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:
1. that two or more persons agreed to distribute controlled substances;
2. that each defendant was a party to or member of that agreement;
3. that each defendant joined the agreement or conspiracy knowing of its

objective to distribute controlled substances and intending to join together
with at least one other alleged conspirator to achieve that objective; that is,
that each defendant and at least one other alleged conspirator shared a
unity of purpose and the intent to achieve that objective; and
4. that the distribution of 5 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance

containing a detectable amount of cocaine, 280 grams or more of a
mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base
(“crack”), 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual), and/or 100
grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount
of heroin was reasonably foreseeable to each defendant.
B. Distribution of Controlled Substances (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) (Counts Four,

Five, and Eleven)
To establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), as charged in Counts Four, Five and
Eleven, the government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that the defendant distributed a mixture or substance containing a

controlled substance;
2. that the defendant did so knowingly or intentionally; and
16
3. that the controlled substance was
[Count Four: a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of

cocaine base (“crack”)]
[Count Five: 28 grams or more of cocaine base (“crack”)]
[Count Eleven: 50 grams or more of methamphetamine].
To establish that a defendant aided and abetted in the distribution of a controlled
substance, as charged in Counts Four, Five, and Eleven, the government must prove the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that the principal committed the offense charged, that is, distribution of a
controlled substance, by committing each of the elements of the offense
described above;
2. that the defendant knew that the offense charged was going to be
committed or was being committed by the principal;
3. that the defendant knowingly did some act for the purpose of assisting the
principal in committing the offense charged and with the intent that the
principal commit that specific offense; and
4. that the defendant performed an act in furtherance of the offense charged.
C. Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance (21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1)) (Counts Six, Seven, Twelve, and Thirteen)
To establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), as charged in Counts Six, Seven,
Twelve, and Thirteen the government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:
1. that the defendant possessed a mixture or substance containing a

controlled substance;
2. that the defendant possessed the controlled substance knowingly or

intentionally;
3. that the defendant intended to distribute the controlled substance; and
17
4. that the controlled substance was
[Count Six: 28 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a

detectable amount of cocaine base (“crack”), or 100 grams or more of a
mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of heroin, or a
mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine]
[Count Seven: 28 grams or more of a mixture and substances containing a

detectable amount of cocaine case (“crack”), or a mixture and substance
containing a detectable amount of cocaine]
[Count Twelve: 5 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance

containing a detectable amount of cocaine and/or 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine]
[Count Thirteen: marijuana].
To establish that a defendant aided and abetted in the possession with intent to distribute
a controlled substance, as charged in Counts Six and Twelve, the government must prove the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that the principal committed the offense charged, that is, distribution of a
controlled substance, by committing each of the elements of the offense
described above;
2. that the defendant knew that the offense charged was going to be
committed or was being committed by the principal;
3. that the defendant knowingly did some act for the purpose of assisting the
principal in committing the offense charged and with the intent that the
principal commit that specific offense; and
4. that the defendant performed an act in furtherance of the offense charged.
D. Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) (Counts

Fourteen and Sixteen)
To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), as charged in Counts Fourteen and
Sixteen, the government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
18
1. The defendant knowingly possessed the firearm and ammunition described

in the indictment;
2. At the time of the charged act, the defendant had previously been
convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year;
3. At the time of the charged act, the defendant knew that he had been
convicted of such an offense; and
4. Such possession was in or affecting commerce.
E. Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime (18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)) (Count Fifteen)
To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), as charged in Count Fifteen, the
government must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that the defendant committed at the drug trafficking crime charged in

Count Thirteen of the Second Superseding Indictment; that is possession
with intent to distribute for remuneration a mixture and substance
containing a detectable amount of marijuana; and
2. that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm in furtherance of this

crime.
V. LEGAL ISSUES
A. Conspiracy Generally
Where, as here, the indictment charges the existence of a conspiracy containing multiple
members, the United States must provide evidence at trial that will allow a reasonable fact finder
to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant and at least one other person shared a “of
purpose” or the intent to “achieve a common goal” and an agreement to “work together toward the
goal.” United States v. Applewaite, 195 F.3d 679, 684 (3d Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). The
United States is not required to prove the existence of an express or formal agreement; “a tacit
understanding is sufficient.” Ianelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777 n.10 (1975). Further,
19
proof of the existence of an agreement may be established entirely by circumstantial evidence.
Conspiracy law merely requires that the inferences drawn have a logical and convincing
connection to the evidence. Applewaite, 195 F.3d at 684. Moreover, “juries are free to use their
common sense and apply common knowledge, observation, and experience gained in the ordinary
affairs of life when giving effect to the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the
evidence.” United States v. Ramirez, 954 F.2d 1035, 1039 (5th Cir. 1992). It bears observing
that the government, to sustain a conspiracy conviction, need only show sufficient evidence that
the defendant conspired with “someone – anyone.” United States v. Pressler, 256 F.3d 144, 149
(3d Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Obialo, 23 F.3d 69, 73 (3d Cir. 1994)).
In this case, as charged in Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment, the defendants
conspired with each other to distribute cocaine, cocaine base (“crack”), methamphetamine, and
heroin between at least March 2017 and June 2018. The government will prove the existence of
the conspiracy and each defendant’s role in the conspiracy though a variety of evidence, including:
witness testimony; text messages among the defendants; social media posts; surveillance from
controlled purchases of narcotics; surveillance of defendants Blanding, Hickson, and Hoover
traveling to California to obtain large quantities of narcotics; surveillance of the defendants
meeting at stash houses after Blanding, Hickson, and Hoover returned to Philadelphia; and
narcotics seized at various locations controlled by OBH.
B. Factors Demonstrating Existence of a Conspiracy
“The elements of a charge of conspiracy are: (1) ‘a unity of purpose between the alleged
conspirators;’ (2) ‘an intent to achieve a common goal;’ and (3) ‘an agreement to work together
toward that goal.’” United States v. Gibbs, 190 F.3d 188, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). The Court in
20
Gibbs noted that “even an occasional supplier (and by implication an occasional buyer for
redistribution) can be shown to be a member of the conspiracy by evidence, direct or inferential, of
knowledge that she or he was part of a larger operation.’” Id. at 198, quoting United States v.
Price, 13 F.3d 711, 728 (3d Cir. 1994), and citing United States v. Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d 587,
594 (3d Cir. 1989).
The facts that can support the existence of a conspiracy are quite varied. Some examples
are:
• the length of affiliation between the parties, Gibbs, 190 F.3d at 199;
• repeated, familiar dealings, which provide an inference that the buyer “comprehends
fully the nature of the group with whom he [or she] is dealing, is more likely to depend
heavily on the conspiracy as the sole source of his [or her] drugs, and is more likely to
perform drug-related acts for conspiracy members in an effort to maintain his [or her]
connection to them,” id.;
• knowledge of buyer that seller sells to people other than himself; knowledge of seller
that buyer is re-seller, Gibbs, 190 F.3d at 201;
• the buyer purchased large amounts of drugs from seller, United States v. Pressler, 256
F.3d 144, 153, n.4 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Gibbs);
• code used in drug transactions, id. (citing Gibbs);
• extensive use of phones between parties involved in drug trafficking, United States v.
Rodriguez, 215 F.3d 110, 117 (1st Cir. 2000); and
• credit transactions, United States v. Price, 13 F.3d at 728.
“Numerous suppliers and distributors operating under the aegis of a common core group can be
treated as a single conspiracy. The government need not prove that each defendant knew all the
details, goals, or other participants.” Id. at 728, citing Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d at 593.
In United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2002), the Third Circuit noted several
factors that would warrant an inference that a defendant was part of a conspiracy, including: “(1)
21
the length of affiliation between the defendant and the conspiracy; (2) whether there is an
established method of payment; (3) the extent to which transactions are standardized; and (4)
whether there is a demonstrated level of mutual trust.” Id. at 343 (citations omitted).
While these factors “are not necessarily dispositive of the issue,” id., they certainly justify a
conclusion that there was a conspiracy. “[T]heir presence suggests that a defendant has full
knowledge of, if not a stake in, a conspiracy . . .” Id. “[W]hen a defendant drug buyer has
repeated, familiar dealings with members of a conspiracy, that buyer probably comprehends fully
the nature of the group with whom he is dealing . . .” Id. The conspirator “is more likely to
depend heavily on the conspiracy as the sole source of his drugs, and is more likely to perform
drug-related acts for conspiracy members in an effort to maintain his connection to them.” Id.
As the Third Circuit has further explained: Chain-shaped conspiracies present the classic
examples of interdependence. For instance, in Perez, 280 F.3d at 347, the Third Circuit concluded
that two drug sellers and a drug smuggler were interdependent, even though there was a
middleman between them, because “[the dealers] depended on a scheme involving [the smuggler
and the middleman] and the shipment from the Philippines to possess and distribute the illegal
drug.” See also United States v. Portela, 167 F.3d 687, 697 (1st Cir.1999) (explaining that “a
single conspiracy [exists] if the continued health of the trafficking and distribution network
necessarily depends on the continued efforts of multiple suppliers”); United States v. Evans, 970
F.2d 663, 670 (10th Cir.1992) (“Interdependence is present when each alleged coconspirator ...
depend[s] on the operation of each link in the chain to achieve the common goal.” (alterations in
original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
22
C. Association With Other Conspirators
While presence and association alone cannot establish a defendant’s participation
in a conspiracy, the jury is permitted to “consider presence and association, along with other
evidence, in finding conspiratorial activity by the defendant.” United States v. Chavez, 947 F.2d
742, 745 (5th Cir.1991). See also United States v. Pompa, 434 F.3d 800, 806-07 (5th Cir. 2005);
accord United States v. Mickelson, 378 F.3d 810, 821(8th Cir. 2004) (association, while not
enough on its own to prove conspiracy, is admissible with other evidence to prove conspiracy).
Photographs of various defendants together is admissible to prove a conspiracy. United States v.
Price, 418 F.3d 771, 782 (7th Cir. 2005). The government will introduce social media posts and
text messages, among other things, that connect the conspirators together in a variety of contexts.
D. Events Not Specifically Alleged in the Conspiracy
Title 21, United States Code, Section 846 does not require that the government allege or
prove an overt act in order to prove a violation of the statute. There are a wide variety of facts
adverted to in the indictment; there are also a wide variety of facts that were not alleged in the
indictment, but which prove the conspiracy. This additional evidence relates directly to the
conspiracy, and is admissible despite the fact that it is not specifically discussed in the indictment.
See United States v. Gibbs, 190 F.3d 188, 217 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding that defendant=s
participation in uncharged acts of violence was admissible as direct proof of the conspiracy with
which he was charged); United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 812-13 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[i]t is clear
the Government may offer proof of acts not included within the indictment, as long as they are
within the scope of the conspiracy . . . An act that is alleged to have been done in furtherance of
the alleged conspiracy . . . is not an ‘other’ act within the meaning of Rule 404(b); rather it is part
23
of the very act charged.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In United States v. Cross,
308 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2002), the Third Circuit explained that “acts are intrinsic when they directly
prove the charged [crime].”
For example, on October 14, 2017, Robbie Johnson was murdered at the behest of Abdul
West and in coordination with defendant Daryl Baker and possibly other members of OBH. This
murder is not specifically alleged in the indictment, but it is specifically alleged that OBH used
violence and threats of violence to facilitate their drug trafficking. Defense counsel has filed a
motion to preclude reference to this murder, and the government responded. The Court stated
during an October 15 pretrial conference that it will address this issue after voir dire. Should the
Court permit evidence related to the murder of Robbie Johnson, the government will present
testimony, as well as phone records and social media records, to prove that Abdul West ordered
the murder of Robbie Johnson and that other defendants played a role.
E. Admissibility of Co-Conspirator Statements
Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) provides that “a statement made by a co-conspirator
of a party during the course and in furtherance of that conspiracy” is not hearsay and may be
admitted as evidence against a co-conspirator. In order for a court to admit the co-conspirator
statement, the government must prove that (1) a conspiracy existed, (2) the declarant and the
defendant were both members of the conspiracy, (3) the statement was made in the course of the
conspiracy; and (4) the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v.
Bourjaily, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987); United States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309, 333-34 (3d Cir.
1992); United States v. Gambino, 926 F.2d 1355, 1360 (3d Cir. 1991).
In making a preliminary factual determination as to the existence of a conspiracy and the
24
defendant’s participation in it, courts may consider the offered hearsay statement itself.
Bourjaily, 483 U.S. at 180-81. “[T]here is little doubt that a co-conspirator’s statements could
themselves be probative of the existence of a conspiracy and the participation of both the
defendant and the declarant in the conspiracy.” Id; see also McGlory, 968 F.2d at 334. The
district court should consider the totality of the circumstances when deciding the admissibility of
such evidence. “The circumstances surrounding the statement, such as the identity of the speaker,
the context in which the statement is made, or evidence corroborating the contents of the
statement,” should be considered by the trial court. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) (Advisory
Committee Notes); United States v. Traitz, 871 F.2d 368, 399 (3d Cir. 1989). When determining
the admissibility of a co-conspirator statement, the existence of the conspiracy and the party’s
participation in that conspiracy need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
Bourjaily, 483 U.S. at 175.
Although casual conversations between co-conspirators are inadmissible, statements that,
among other things, maintain cohesiveness and convey information relevant to conspiratorial
objectives are in furtherance of the conspiracy and admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Traitz,
871 F.2d at 399. Accordingly, “statements of a co-conspirator identifying a fellow co-conspirator
as his source of narcotics are statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v.
Lambros, 564 F.2d 26, 30 (8th Cir. 1977); see United States v. Munson, 819 F.2d 337, 341 (1st
Cir. 1987); United States v. Anderson, 642 F.2d 281, 285 (9th Cir. 1981).
The Third Circuit has commented that the “in furtherance” requirement is to be given a
broad interpretation. United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838, 843 (3d Cir. 1984); United States v.
DePeri, 778 F.2d 963, 981 (3d Cir. 1985). Although the “during the course of” and “in
25
furtherance” requirements do not overlap entirely, they are closely related. United States v.
Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 253 (3d Cir.1983). While mere narratives of past events or mere idle
chatter that has no current purpose are not generally deemed to occur in furtherance of the
conspiracy, statements that “provide reassurance, serve to maintain trust and cohesiveness among
co-conspirators, or inform each other of the current status of the conspiracy” further the
conspiracy. Id. at 252; see United States v. Harris, 908 F.2d 728, 737 (11th Cir. 1990); United
States v. Hudson, 970 F.2d 948, 958-59 (1st Cir. 1992). For example, statements which are
relevant to the distribution of the proceeds of the conspiracy are considered in furtherance of the
conspiracy. Ammar, 714 F.2d at 253. In order for statements to be deemed “in furtherance of
the conspiracy,” they need not actually “further” the conspiracy; it is sufficient that a statement
was intended to promote the conspiracy, even if it did not actually do so. See United States v.
Williams, 989 F.2d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Mayes, 917 F.2d 457, 464 (10th
Cir. 1990).
The trial court may admit statements pursuant to the Rule even if the statements relate to a
conspiracy not charged in the indictment. United States v. Ellis, 156 F.3d 493, 497 (3d Cir.
1998); United States v. Trowery, 542 F.2d 623, 626 (3d Cir. 1976). The rationale for this rule is
that the co-conspirator provision in Rule 801(d)(2)(E) is merely a rule of evidence founded on the
theory “that a person who has authorized another to speak or act to some joint end will be held
responsible for what is later said or done by his agent . . .” Trowery, 542 F.2d at 626.
F. Possession
With regard to the elements of possession, the United States does not have to prove that a
defendant physically possessed the narcotics or firearms at issue in order for the jury to find the
26
defendant guilty of these crimes. Rather, the law recognizes two kinds of possession – actual
possession and constructive possession.
In order to establish actual possession, the United States must prove that the defendant had
direct, physical control over the items, and knew that he had control of them. In order to establish
constructive possession, the United States must prove that a defendant had the right to exercise
dominion and control over the items, and knew that he had this right, and that he intended to
exercise control over the items at some time, either directly or through other persons. In addition,
the United States does not have to prove that a defendant was the only one who had possession of
the narcotics or firearms. Two or more people can together share actual or constructive
possession over property, and if they do, both are considered to have possession as far as the law is
concerned.
G. Possession of Firearms & Ammunition as Evidence of Intent to Distribute

Narcotics
Guns are an acknowledged “tool of the trade” in the drug business. Possession of
weapons, in particular handguns, along with other evidence, is powerful circumstantial evidence
that an individual is in the drug trafficking trade. United States v. Price, 418 F.3d 771, 779 (7th
Cir. 2005); United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1108 (3d Cir. 1983) (admission of Uzi type
weapons during narcotics trial not unduly prejudicial; guns are “tools of the trade.”). In this case,
the evidence regarding possession of firearms by the members of the conspiracy is admissible to
prove the drug conspiracies and other drug charges.
The government will offer evidence related to the several firearms recovered and/or used
during the course of the FBI’s investigation of OBH. First, law enforcement witnesses who
searched the Mansion on September 11, 2017 will testify about a firearm found rolled up in a rug
27
on the first floor, as well as a firearm that was found during a search of West’s White Jeep
Cherokee. The government will also present evidence related to the use of firearms to further the
goals of the conspiracy, and the agents who arrested Boyer and Baker will testify as to the firearms
recovered during their arrests. The firearms seized during the arrests of Boyer and Baker serve as
the basis for Counts Fourteen, Fifteen, and Sixteen, but beyond that, they are also probative of the
charged conspiracy.
Additionally, the government will offer social media posts in which the members of the
conspiracy are photographed with firearms in their possession or within reach. The government
will also present evidence of threats in which the defendants, particularly Abdul West, reference
the use of firearms. This is powerful evidence of the defendants’ involvement in the charged
drug trafficking conspiracy.
H. Narcotics Expert Testimony
“In cases involving narcotics trafficking, courts have admitted a broad range of expert
testimony concerning the ‘modus operandi’ of the drug trade.” United States v. McGlory, 968
F.2d 309, 345 (3d Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Watson, 260 F.3d 301, 308 (3d Cir. 2001)
(“[E]xpert testimony concerning the modus operandi of individuals involved in drug trafficking
does not violate Rule 704(b).@). It is well-established that police officers may testify as experts
concerning the methods and practices employed in a particular area of criminal activity, United
States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990), including the operations of a drug
trafficking ring, United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823, 830 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v.
Montas, 41 F.3d 775, 783-84 (1st Cir. 1994). Courts have upheld the admissibility of expert
testimony by investigative agents who are properly qualified as experts regarding the “tools of the
28
trade” for narcotics trafficking. United States v. Foster, 939 F.2d 445, 453 (7th Cir. 1991);
United States v. Solis, 923 F.2d 548, 550-51 (7th Cir. 1991) (expert testimony upheld on the use of
beepers in narcotics trafficking); United States v. Monu, 782 F.2d 1209, 1210-11 (4th Cir. 1986)
(expert testimony upheld on the use of scales in the drug trade); United States v. Navarro, 90 F.3d
1245, 1259-60 (7th Cir. 1996). In addition, “experienced narcotics agent[s] may testify about the
significance of certain conduct or methods of operation to the drug distribution business, as such
testimony is often helpful in assisting the trier of fact understand the evidence.” United States v.
Griffith, 118 F.3d 318, 321 (5th Cir. 1997), quoting United States v. Washington, 44 F.3d 1271,
1283 (5th Cir. 1995).
The government intends to introduce the testimony of Special Agent Randy Updegraff of
the Drug Enforcement Administration, who is an expert in the operations of drug trafficking
organizations. His testimony in this case is admissible under Daubert, as he will provide a
reliable opinion based upon years of training and experience. The Court should find that SA
Updegraff possesses “areas of specialized knowledge outside the common experience of the jury,”
and that he is qualified to testify as an expert “in drug trafficking.”
His testimony, concerning a variety of aspects of drug trafficking, is, in fact, specialized
knowledge which is not within the purview of the average juror. SA Updegraff will provide
detailed information about law enforcement techniques, including surveillance, monitoring of
various electronic communications, and the use of confidential sources. His expertise, gained
through hundreds of investigations concerning how narcotics traffickers transport, process, and
package drugs, and use stash house locations in third party names to protect their product and to
avoid detection by police, is not knowledge available to the average citizen or juror.
29
SA Updegraff will testify as to the use and meaning of coded language used by the co-
conspirators in text messages and on social media, and based on those meanings, he will opine as
to the amounts of narcotics being discussed by each defendant. SA Updegraff is also expected to
testify that the circumstances surrounding the seizure of different drugs, drug paraphernalia, and
firearms are consistent with distribution activity on a large scale, and not with possession for mere
personal use. Agent Updegraff may also testify, depending on the evidence admitted at trial, that
the circumstances surrounding the murder of Robbie Johnson are consistent with the sort of
violence associated with drug trafficking.
I. Drug Weight Reasonably Foreseeable as to Each Defendant
The defendants are charged in Count One with conspiring to distribute 5 kilograms or more
of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, 280 grams or more of a
mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (“crack”), 50 grams or more
of methamphetamine (actual), and 100 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a
detectable amount of heroin. Although each and every defendant was an active member of the
conspiracy, each may be held accountable only for the amount of drugs reasonably foreseeable by
that defendant.
VI. WITNESSES
The government’s preliminary witness list is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The
government respectfully reserves the right to supplement its witness list as may be required. This
list consists of law enforcement witnesses, at least two of whom will testify as summary witnesses,
civilian witnesses, and expert witnesses. In addition to those listed in Exhibit A, the government
expects to call cooperating witnesses whose identities have been disclosed to defense counsel.
30
The government also respectfully reserves the right to call rebuttal witnesses in the event the
defendants present testimony and evidence in their defense.
VII. POTENTIAL TRIAL ISSUES
A. Expert Testimony
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of

fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may testify thereto in the form of opinion or otherwise.
Fed. R. Evid. 702. In addition to SA Randy Updegraff, who the government expects to testify as
an expert on drug trafficking, as outlined above, the government also expects to introduce expert
witnesses in the fields of drug analysis, firearm operability and origin, and cellular telephone
record and historical cell site analysis.
Absent stipulations negating the need to call the forensic chemists who tested the drugs
seized in the course of the investigation in this case, the government will call as many as twelve
forensic chemists to testify as to the following: the presence of controlled substances in mixtures
and substances submitted for analysis; the tests performed to determine whether and what
controlled substances were present; the weight and purity of the substances submitted for analysis;
and the packaging in which the substances were submitted. The curricula vitae and the reports of
these witnesses were produced in discovery.
The government also intends to call a witness or witnesses from the Philadelphia Police
Department Firearms Identification Unit, who will testify that the firearms seized in this case were
able to fire projectiles and were manufactured outside of Pennsylvania.
31
The government also intends to call FBI Special Agent William Shute, who is a member of
the FBI Cellular Analysis Survey Team – or “CAST” – to testify as an expert in the area of cellular
telephone record and historical cell site analysis. SA Shute will testify, based on call detail
records and cellsite location information obtained during the investigation in this case, as to the
locations of cellular devices associated with the defendants during times relevant to the charges in
this case. SA Shute’s curriculum vitae has been provided and SA Shute’s trial exhibits will be
supplied in advance of trial.
In addition, if there is not a stipulation regarding defendants Amir Boyer’s and Daryl
Baker’s prior felony convictions for purposes of their respective 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) charges, a
fingerprint examiner with the Philadelphia Police Department will testify regarding the comparison
of their respective fingerprint cards.
B. Summary Presentation of Phone Records and Social Media Records
The government has produced to defense counsel voluminous evidence related to the
defendants’ phones, phone records, and social media records. As described above, the government
expects to call FBI Special Agent William Shute to testify regarding the historical cellsite data in
this case. Additionally, the government expects to call FBI Special Agents Charles Simpson and
William Becker as summary witnesses in order to summarize the following:
• cellular telephones seized by the FBI during the court of the investigation;
• telephone numbers and aliases used by the defendants;
• text message communications among the defendants and unindicted co-
conspirators; and
• amounts of narcotics the government submits are attributable to each defendant.
32
The government will provide these charts, which will save significant time in presenting this
evidence, to defense counsel in advance of trial. A summary witness may properly testify about,
and use a chart to summarize, “evidence which is factually complex and fragmentally revealed.”
United States v. Shirley, 884 F.2d 1130, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 1989). Under Federal Rule of
Evidence 1006, summary charts are admissible if they are based upon evidence that is: (i)
voluminous, (ii) admissible, and (iii) available to the opponent. United States v. Strissel, 920
F.2d 1162, 1163-64 (4th Cir. 1990).
C. Cooperators - Plea Agreements
There are certain witnesses in custody who may testify during this trial. Some of these
witnesses have pled guilty and have plea agreements with the government. The government has
provided and will provide discovery related to these witnesses, and the government will provide
plea documents after the Court unseals those materials.
Evidence of a witness’ plea agreement is permissible to allow the jury to assess the
witness’ credibility, to eliminate any concern that the defendant has been singled out for
prosecution, and to explain how the witness possessed detailed first-hand knowledge regarding the
events about which he testifies. See United States v. Universal Rehab. Servs., Inc., 205 F.3d 657,
667 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc). In direct examination, the government intends to discuss the written
plea agreement and discuss the witness’ responsibilities under the terms of the agreements,
including the witness’ obligation to tell the truth. Such testimony may properly be introduced by
the government. See United States v. Ramos, 27 F.3d 65, 67 n.4 (3d Cir. 1994).
A witness’ intent to plead guilty and plea agreement, however, may not be considered as
evidence of the defendant’s guilt. See Universal Rehab. Servs., 205 F.3d at 668; United States v.
33
Gaev, 24 F.3d 473, 476 (3d Cir. 1994); United States v. Gambino, 926 F.2d 1355, 1363 (3d Cir.
1991). The Third Circuit has held that, in such cases, the jury should be instructed that it may not
consider the guilty plea and/or plea agreement of another as evidence that a defendant is guilty of
the offenses with which he is charged. See Universal Rehab. Servs., 205 F.3d at 668; Gaev, 24
F.3d at 478. Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the Court give a cautioning
instruction to the jury with respect to the testimony of the witness. See Third Circuit Model
Criminal Jury Instructions, § 2.22 (“Witness Who Has Pleaded Guilty to the Same or Related
Charges”).
D. Consciousness of Guilt
Pursuant to the government’s proposed jury instructions, filed under separate cover, the
government is requesting a consciousness of guilt instruction in this case. As discussed above,
defendant Hans Gadson fled in order to avoid being arrested by law enforcement. Such evidence
of flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt, and is admissible against the actor. See United
States v. Green, 25 F.3d 206, 210 (3rd Cir. 1994) (flight by defendant after seeing police officer
who defendant knew was aware of defendant’s open warrants); United States v. Hernandez-
Miranda, 601 F.2d 1104, 1106 (9th Cir. 1979) (failure to appear permits inference of
consciousness of guilt; fact defendant can offer alternate explanation does not warrant
suppression); United States v. Ritch, 583 F.2d 1179, 1181 (1st Cir. 1978) (failure to appear
admissible in trial of underlying narcotics case as evidence of consciousness of guilt); United
States v. Martinez, 944 F. Supp. 975, 981 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (failure to appear, without flight from
jurisdiction, evidence of consciousness of guilt).
34
E. Threats to Witnesses
Threats to a witness are also admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt. “Evidence
of threats against witnesses is routinely admitted against criminal defendants to show
consciousness of guilt.” United States v. Garrison, 168 F.3d 1089, 1093 (8th Cir. 1999); see
United States v. Gatto, 995 F.2d 449, 454 (3d Cir. 1993) (threatening look in courtroom
admissible); United States v. Gonzalez, 603 F.2d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1983) (death threats
evidence of consciousness of guilt); United States v. Guerrero, 803 F.2d 783, 786 (3d Cir. 1986)
(death threats evidence of consciousness of guilt); United States v. Pinto, 394 F.2d 470, 471 (3d
Cir. 1967) (death threat to witness “plainly admissible because it was relevant to show
consciousness of guilt.”) An effort to assassinate a police witness is admissible to prove
defendant’s intent to continue in the conspiracy in which he was involved. United States v.
Velazquez, 410 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir. 2005).
F. Business and Public Records
The government intends to introduce several business records, including call detail records
and historical cellsite location information for numerous telephone numbers used by the
defendants, flight records, hotel records, and social media records. 7 The government may also
introduce certain public records, including department of motor vehicle records. The government
intends to introduce these records as evidence of the charges against the defendants, to establish
7
Specifically as to the social media records, agents have obtained Instagram posts and videos
posted to various social media sites. The government has identified approximately 100 social
media posts and four videos, which it intends to offer into evidence. The Court has ordered
defense counsel to specifically note their objections to the social media posts by October 25, 2019,
and the Court will then rule as to the admissibility of the posts as they are offered at trial.
35
the relationship and association between and among the defendants, and to corroborate the
testimony of government witnesses.
The government and defense counsel have discussed but have not yet entered into
stipulations as to the authenticity and admissibility of these records. Absent stipulations, the
government will introduce the records through various records custodians or move the Court,
pursuant to Rule 902(11), to admit those records for which the government possesses Rule 902
certifications from the providers of the records.
G. Motions in Limine
The government has filed motions in limine to introduce evidence pursuant to Rule 609(a)
and to admit certain social media posts as intrinsic to the offense charged, or alternatively, under
Rule 404(b). As set forth above, the government may also file a motion to admit certain business
records under Rule 902.
Additionally, the United States will make an oral motion in limine requesting that
questioning regarding punishment is not proper. The punishment for the offense charged is not a
proper matter for the jury’s consideration. See Shannon v. United States, 513 U.S. 573 (1994);
United States v. Fisher, 10 F.3d 115, 121 (3d Cir. 1993); United States v. Austin, 533 F.2d 879,
885-86 & n.14 (3d Cir. 1976); See generally 1 L. Sand, J. Siffert, W. Loughlin, and S. Reiss,
Modern Federal Jury Instructions – Criminal ¶ 9.01 (1993). As the court observed in United States
v. Greer, 620 F.2d 1383, 1384 (10th Cir. 1980): “The authorities are unequivocal in holding that
presenting information to the jury about possible sentencing is prejudicial.” Questioning and
argument addressing these issues, thus, would be improper. Evidence should be excluded where
it is irrelevant to the issue being tried or where it will “induce the jury to decide the case on an
36
improper basis, commonly an emotional one, rather than on the evidence presented....” United
States v. Vretta, 790 F.2d 651, 655 (7th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).
H. Potential Stipulations
To streamline the trial for the Court’s and jury’s convenience, the parties have discussed
but have not yet entered into, a number of standard and routine stipulations for cases such as this.
The proposed stipulations, if agreed to, would cover several issues, including: the authenticity
and admissibility of certain business records, including phone records and social media records
(as discussed above); the presence of controlled substances in the mixtures or substances at issue
in this case; the weight of those mixtures or substances; and the operability and interstate nexus
of the firearms at issue. Further, as to the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) violations charged in Counts
Fourteen and Sixteen, the parties will discuss proposed stipulations that the guns at issue meet
the pertinent statutory definition for firearm, that the guns were manufactured outside
Pennsylvania, and that each defendant has a previous (unspecified) felony conviction.
I. Cellphones
In this case, the government searched approximately 61 cellular telephones associated
with the defendants. In doing so, the investigating agents created forensic reports which detail
the contents of those cellular telephones. For most of the phones searched, and for all of the
phones the contents of which the government will seek to admit into evidence, SA Simpson with
the FBI created the forensic reports. The government will therefore introduce these records
through the testimony of SA Simpson.
Alternatively, to save time during the trial presentation, the parties could stipulate to the
admissibility of these forensic reports. If such a stipulation were entered into, the government
37
could introduce the specific information which the government submits is relevant through
summary exhibits. This would negate the need to introduce into evidence the full forensic
reports because, as discussed above, information contained on summary exhibits needs only to
be admissible, not actually admitted into evidence.
J. Recordings/Prison Calls/Rap Videos
Transcripts of recordings of controlled buys, prison calls, and rap videos, which the
government intends to introduce at trial have been provided to defense counsel. The
government also previously filed a Starks motion regarding transcripts of the controlled buys
discussed above and prison calls of Defendant Daryl Baker. On October 16, 2019, the Court
ordered defense counsel to meet and confer with the government no later than October 29, 2019
and to bring any unresolved issues related to the transcripts to the Court’s attention.
K. Testimony of What a Listener Understood a Declarant to Mean
A witness may testify to what he or she understood a declarant to mean with respect to a
statement made by the declarant to the witness. United States v. Brooks, 473 F.2d 817, 818 (9th
Cir. 1973) (per curiam).
L. Use of Agents’ Notes and Reports to Cross-Examine Witnesses
The government has provided the defense with reports of witness interviews by
government agents. To the extent that the agents who prepared the reports testify, those reports,
if materially inconsistent, provide an appropriate basis for impeachment of the agents. However
under the Federal Rules of Evidence, those reports may not be used to impeach the subject of the
underlying interview unless the subject has somehow adopted those reports or notes. United
States v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, 29 (2d Cir. 1992).
39
In Almonte, a DEA agent testified at trial about the post-arrest statements that he had
obtained from two defendants who were being tried. Id. at 28. One defendant sought to impeach
the agent by admitting interview notes taken by an Assistant U.S. Attorney who had interviewed
the agent as a prior inconsistent statement. Id. at 28-29. The district court rejected the effort and
the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that the AUSA’s notes were not the agent’s statement, but
merely a “third party’s characterization” of the agent’s statement, and therefore irrelevant as an
impeaching prior inconsistent statement and consequently inadmissible:
We have held, however, that a “third party's characterization” of a witness’s

statement does not constitute a prior statement of that witness unless the witness
has subscribed to that characterization. … Thus, in the absence of endorsement by
the witness, a third party's notes of a witness's statement may not be admitted as a
prior inconsistent statement unless they are a verbatim transcript of the witness's
own words. The problem, in essence, is one of relevancy. If a third party's notes
reflect only that note-taker's summary characterization of a witness's prior
statement, then the notes are irrelevant as an impeaching prior inconsistent
statement, and thus inadmissible.
Id. at 29 (citation omitted).
As a matter of evidence, the burden “of proving that notes reflect the witness’s own
words rather than the note-taker’s characterization falls on the party seeking to introduce the
notes.” Id. Thus, a party seeking to use a report to impeach bears the burden of proving a rational
basis for concluding that the report either was adopted by witness or represents the verbatim
transcript of the witness’ statement. See id. at 30. In the absence of such proof, cross-
examination from such reports or notes should be carefully scrutinized so that a statement that is
otherwise inadmissible is not back-doored into evidence and read into the record. See also
United States v. Shoenborn, 4 F.3d 1424, 1427-28 and n.3 (7th Cir. 1993). In this case,
defendants should not be permitted to admit notes or reports to impeach the underlying subjects
40
of those interviews, or cross-examine witnesses using any portion of the statement.
M. Exhibits - Presented in Electronic Format
The government will provide the Court as well as defense counsel with an electronic
copy of the exhibits prior to the start of testimony on November 4, 2019. Further, in order to
move quickly and save significant time in presenting the evidence the government will use the
ASanctions@ program, to allow for their display electronically to the jury.
The evidence in this case will include testimony from law enforcement witnesses, civilian
witnesses, cooperating witnesses, and expert witnesses, as well as business records, including
phone records and flight records, to corroborate the testimony of the government’s witnesses.
The government also intends to introduce surveillance video and photographs, text
messages among the defendants and with others not charged, prison calls, social media posts,
and physical evidence, such as narcotics, firearms, ammunition, and United States currency
seized during the course of the investigation.
VIII. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
A. Potential Bifurcation of Certain Counts and Issues
The government expects that the defense may request, or the Court may decide, that
Counts Fourteen and Sixteen should be bifurcated for trial, because the proof for those counts
includes evidence that the defendants charged in those counts have previously been convicted of
felonies. If Defendant Boyer testifies and the government is permitted to impeach him with his
prior convictions, as requested in the government’s pending Rule 609 motion, the issue of
bifurcation will be moot as to Defendant Boyer because the jury will have been presented with
evidence of his prior convictions. If, however, evidence of any defendant’s prior felonies is not
41
otherwise admitted, then bifurcation at the request of the defense is appropriate, and the
government will be prepared to present evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions, either
through a stipulation and/or additional testimony, at the appropriate time. See United States v.
Joshua, 976 F.2d 844, 848 (3d Cir. 1992). See United States v. Joshua, 976 F.2d 844, 848 (3d
Cir. 1992) (approving the bifurcated trial of a felon-in-possession count where the defendant was
charged with armed bank robbery and related firearms offenses); United States v. Busic, 587
F.2d 577, 585 (3d Cir. 1978) (same in dictum). 8 For the Court’s convenience, the government
will provide to the Court proposed jury instructions and a special verdict form in the event
Counts Fourteen and Sixteen are bifurcated.
Additionally, in accordance with current Department of Justice guidance concerning the
recently enacted “First Step Act,” the Second Superseding Indictment charges in Counts Five,
Six, Eleven, and Twelve that “before defendant [West or Blanding] committed the offense
charged … the defendant was convicted of the offense of possession with intent to distribute a
controlled substance in violation of 35 Pa.C.S.A. ' 780-113 (A30), a serious drug felony, . . . for
which he was convicted and served more than 12 months of imprisonment and for which he was
released from serving any term of imprisonment related to that offense within 15 years of the
commencement of his involvement in the instant offense.” See Second Superseding Indictment,
8 The Third Circuit Model Jury Instruction, No. 6.18 (2017), provide the following reasoning to support
bifurcation of a §922(g) charge:
Because of this risk of prejudice, defendants generally request bifurcation of the issues to reduce the
prejudicial impact of the prior conviction, seeking to have evidence of the prior conviction withheld until
the jury has resolved the other issues in the case . . . if the felon in possession charge under § 922(g) is
joined with other charges, the court should strongly consider bifurcating the trial . . . If the defense does not
request bifurcation, the judge may want to colloquy the defendant and defense counsel to establish on the
record that they do not desire bifurcation
42
Counts Five, Six, Eleven, and Twelve.
If West and/or Blanding are convicted on Counts Five, Six, Eleven, and/or Twelve, the
government will then present evidence in a bifurcated proceeding (absent stipulations) that those
defendants were previously convicted, as set forth above, served more than 12 months
imprisonment, and were released within 15 years of the commencement of their involvement in
the charged conspiracy. The government will submit specialized jury instructions for this
bifurcated proceeding and a special verdict form asking the jury to find the above facts.
B. Trial of Forfeiture Issues
The Second Superseding Indictment in this case includes a notice of forfeiture in
connection with the drug and firearm offenses with which the defendants are charged. The
defendants enjoy a right to have forfeiture decided by the jury. They may also waive that right.
In the event any of the defendants choose to have forfeiture presented to the jury, the government
will provide to the Court proposed jury instructions and a special verdict form.
IX. OTHER ISSUES
Obviously, potential rebuttal witnesses exist, whose presentation would depend on
whether defendants elect to present any defense, and if they do, what they or other witnesses say
in the course of that defense.
Jury instructions, verdict sheets and voir dire have been or will be filed under separate
cover.
The United States requests that all witnesses, except for Special Agents Charles Simpson
and William Becker, the case agents participating in the investigation and assisting the United
States at trial, be sequestered.
43
X. ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL
The Government anticipates that its case in chief should take approximately eight to ten
trial days after the jury is selected. This estimate depends on whether the parties are able to
reach stipulations that will eliminate the need to call certain witnesses, including records
custodians and forensic chemists.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM M. McSWAIN
United States Attorney
/s Jerome Maiatico
JEROME MAIATICO
Assistant United States Attorney
Deputy Chief, Narcotics & Organized Crime
Section
/s Timothy M. Stengel
EVERETT R. WITHERELL
TIMOTHY M. STENGEL
Assistant United States Attorneys
Dated: October 28, 2019
44
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this day I caused a copy of the Government’s Trial Memorandum
to be served by electronic filing on all counsel of record.
/s Timothy M. Stengel
TIMOTHY M. STENGEL
Assistant United States Attorney
Dated: October 28, 2019

Exhibit A
United States v. West, et al., Crim. No. 18-249

Government’s Witness List
October 28, 2019
Law Enforcement Witnesses:
1. FBI Special Agent Charles Simpson
2. FBI Special Agent Williams Becker
3. FBI Special Agent Kevin Lewis
4. FBI Special Agent Kevin Coleman
5. FBI Special Agent Elizabeth Brewer
6. FBI Special Agent Clint Chlebowski
7. FBI Task Force Officer John Krewer
8. FBI Task Force Officer Jason Yerges
9. FBI Task Force Officer Gregory Stevens
10. FBI Task Force Officer Jason Cowdery
11. FBI Task Force Officer Bill Schlosser
12. FBI Task Force Officer Anthony Colarulo
13. Philadelphia Police Department Det. Danielle Slobodian
14. Philadelphia Police Department Det. Justin Falcone
15. Philadelphia Police Department Det. Brian Peters
16. Philadelphia Police Department Sgt. Kevin Livewell
17. Philadelphia Police Department Sgt. James Schuck
18. Philadelphia Police Department Ofc. Charles Rillera
19. Philadelphia Police Department Ofc. John Terry
20. Philadelphia Police Department Ofc. Ralph Nelson

21. Philadelphia Police Department Ofc. John Taggart
22. Philadelphia Police Department Ofc. Timothy Bogan
23. Philadelphia Police Department Ofc. Ernest Brown
24. Philadelphia Police Department Ofc. Jeffery Galazka
25. Philadelphia Police Department Ofc. Richard Nicoletti
26. Philadelphia Police Department Ofc. Michael Vargas
Civilian Witnesses:
27. Shawn McGann
28. Denise Kelly
29. Diane Green
30. Employee of Edgewater Apartments (2323 Race Street)
31. Employee of One Water Street Apartments (250 N. Columbus Blvd.)
Business Record Witnesses:
32. Records Custodian, Instagram
33. Records Custodian, AT&T
34. Records Custodian, Sprint
35. Records Custodian, T-Mobile
36. Record Custodian, American Airlines
37. Records Custodian, Delta
38. Records Custodian, United Airlines
39. Records Custodian, Enterprise Car Rental
40. Sgt. Jason M. Winkowski, PennDOT
41. Records Custodian, California DMV

42. Major Robert Sawyer, North Carolina DMV
Expert Witnesses:
43. Drug Analyst Doris Dean
44. Drug Analyst Yogita Patil
45. Drug Analyst Melissa Jones
46. Drug Analyst Haley Cline
47. Drug Analyst Michael Croft
48. Drug Analyst Daisy George
49. Drug Analyst Corey Simmons
50. Drug Analyst Katelynn Le
51. Forensic Chemist Christine A. Haddix
52. Senior Forensic Chemist Erika M. Derks
53. Senior Forensic Chemist Jonathan K. Liu
54. Forensic Chemist Hendri P. Chauca
55. Forensic Chemist Trent Caswell
56. Forensic Chemist Lauren A. Dillon
57. FIU Examiner Ronald Weitman
58. FIU Examiner Robert Stott
59. FIU Examiner Norman DeFields
60. FIU Examiner Mark Wilusz
61. FBI Special Agent William Shute, FBI Cellular Analysis Survey Team
(“CAST”)
62. DEA Supervisory Special Agent Randy Updegraff

AR-AB + OBH Indicment

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AR-AB + OBH Indicment

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 2:18-cr-00249-MMB Document 462 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 48

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

v. : CRIMINAL NO. 18-249

ABDUL IBRAHIM WEST, et al. :

GOVERNMENT’S TRIAL MEMORANDUM

Memorandum in advance of a trial beginning on November 4, 2019.

Indictment, charging defendants ABDUL IBRAHIM WEST, JAMAAL BLANDING, JAMEEL

GADSON with conspiracy to distribute 5 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance

containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (“crack”), 50 grams or more of

offenses. 1 In addition, defendants WEST, BLANDING, HICKSON, HOOVER, BOYER,

substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and aiding and abetting, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C § 2 (Count Six).

intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C § 2 (Count Twelve).

distribution of 28 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of

grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18

U.S.C. § 2 (Count Eleven).

mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (Count Thirteen), possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18

trafficking crime charged in Count Thirteen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C) (Count Seven), and possession of a firearm by a

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count Sixteen).

III. SUMMARY OF THE CASE

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been involved in an ongoing investigation of a

Daryl Baker, and Hans Gadson.

• Apartment 717 of One Water Street Apartments, located at 250 N. Columbus

A. Overview of the FBI Investigation into OBH

and social media records, and interviews of witnesses.

routine use of the Mansion.

fleeing the scene of the shooting.

only one that lived at the residence.

also located and seized $8,101.00 in United States Currency.

that Hoover was traveling from Philadelphia to Los Angeles.

followed Hoover to an apartment located at 1 Brown Street in Philadelphia. Agents observed

in Los Angeles at the same time as Hoover.

B. Trips to Los Angeles

by other members of OBH.

1. Trip #1 – November 2, 2017 to November 20, 2017

Los Angeles during the trip.

complex located at 1 Brown Street in Philadelphia. Agents observed Hoover carrying a

2. Trip #2 – December 12, 2017 to December 22, 2017

Gadson came to the apartment the following day.

3. Trip #3 – January 19, 2018 to January 31, 2018

Hoover started driving back toward Philadelphia mere hours later.

Trailblazer and then drove to the apartment at 2323 Race Street.

4. Trip #4 – February 20, 2018 to March 4, 2018

because there was “$ to be made.”

Street two days later, on March 6.

5. Trip #5 – March 27, 2018 to April 9, 2018

observed at 2323 Race Street around that time.

6. Trip #6 – May 4, 2018 to May 16, 2018

Columbus Blvd. in Philadelphia. Agents interviewed the management of that apartment

carry kilogram quantities of narcotics.

returning to 250 N. Columbus Blvd.

Blanding, Hickson, and Hoover are charged.

was arrested there several months later.

authorities seized approximately twenty pounds of marijuana and a firearm. Boyer, a

in Count Sixteen of the Second Superseding Indictment.

IV. STATUTES CHARGED AND ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSES

A. 21 U.S.C. § 846 - Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine/Cocaine Base

To establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, as charged in Count One of the Second