This is just a dox for my friend because he can't get any of this info so I'm just helping him out.

https://doxbin.org/upload/schoolslutonsnap
(his dox on her btw)

Name : Rebecca Callahan

Location : 6924 Holmes ave Brainerd MN 56401

thats all the information he got.

Year    Property Taxes    Tax Assessment
2017    $482     $77,103 (+111.2%)
2016    $482 (+9%)    $36,500 (-7.8%)
2015    $442 (+112.3%)    $39,600 (-1.5%)
2014    $208 (-51.9%)    $40,200 (-11.3%)
2012    $433 (+21.4%)    $45,300
2011    $356 (+3582.2%)    $45,300 (+3675%)
2010    $10 (+114.2%)    $1,200 (+9.1%)
2009    $5     $1,100

Parents 
___________________
Jared E. Callahan 
Tika L. Callaghan 
___________________

Address ( both )  ->  6924 Holmes ave Brainerd MN 56401
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                       Jared Callahan's Court Data

                                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                       FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                             SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after
January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this
Courts Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party
must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation summary order).
A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

       At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on
the 25TH day of January, two thousand eleven.

PRESENT:             JOS A. CABRANES,
                     REENA RAGGI,
                            Circuit Judges,
                     RICHARD K. EATON ,
                            Judge.*

-------------------------------------------x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

                               Appellee,
          v.                                                                               No. 09-5327-cr(con)

DANNY THERIAULT, also known as Vinny,

                               Defendant-Appellant,

DAVID SUNDAY , also known as Snookty, DENNY
THERIAULT, JOSHUA SPAULDING , also known as Spank,
CHAD E. FELLERS, JARED CALLAHAN , also known as Roo,
and JACKALEEN THERIAULT, also known as Ma,

                               Defendants.**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x


          *
              The Honorable Richard K. Eaton, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

          **
               The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption to read as shown above.

                                                                    1
FOR APPELLANT:                          LEE GREENSTEIN , Albany, NY.

FOR APPELLEE:                           BRENDA K. SANNES, Assistant United States Attorney
                                        (Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney, on the brief, and
                                        Carl E. Eurenius, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel),
                                        Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of
                                        New York, Syracuse, NY.

       Appeal from a December 21, 2009 judgment entered in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York (Gary L. Sharpe, Judge).

     UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED.

        An indictment filed in the Northern District of New York on April 19, 2007, charged defendant-
appellant Danny Theriault (Theriault), his mother, Jackaleen Theriault, his brother, Denny Theriault,
and four other defendants, David Sunday, Joshua Spaulding, Chad E. Fellers, and Jared Callahan, with
conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C.  841 and 18 U.S.C. 2 (Count One), and conspiring to import into the United
States from Canada over 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.  952, 963 and 18
U.S.C. 2 (Count Two). Nearly two years later, the government proceeded to trial against Theriault and
his mother (jointly, the Theriaults). At the close of the governments case, the District Court granted,
with the governments consent, the Theriaults motion for a judgment of acquittal on Count Two.
Theriault (along with his mother) was subsequently found guilty on Count One. The District Court
sentenced Theriault to a term of 210 months. Theriault now appeals his conviction and sentence.

I.      Background

       At trial, the government introduced considerable evidence in support of its theory of the case.
According to the government, co-conspirator David Sunday supplied large quantities of
marijuanaimported from Canadato the Theriaults, who, along with the other named co-
conspirators, redistributed the marijuana and helped to return some of the proceeds back to the
Canadian source of supply.
       New York State Trooper Gary Snell testified about Theriaults post-arrest admissions.
According to Snell, Theriault acknowledged that he had been part of a marijuana trafficking conspiracy
with David Sunday for over a year. As Snell further explained:
       [Theriault] told me they used trapped out vehicles to smuggle marijuana, typically Mr. Theriault
       would be told that the vehicle was left on [the] American side of the St. Regis Indian
       Reservation, which he was told was loaded with marijuana. He or another of his partners was
       given instructions where to take the car, deliver the marijuana and return the vehicle back to the
       Indian reservation where it would be picked up by someone.



                                                    2
         Co-conspirator Jared Callahan, who had agreed to plead guilty prior to the Theriaults trial,
testified for the government as a cooperating witness. Callahan testified that from January 2006 to
March 2007 he frequently purchased large quantities of marijuana from the Theriaults or their associates.
Although Danny Theriaultknown to Callahan as Vinnywas never personally present at any drug
transaction involving Callahan, he served as Callahans primary contact in arranging the drug deals.
Additionally, the government introduced inculpatory evidence collected from various vehicle stops and
wiretaps relating to the Theriaults involvement in this drug conspiracy.

        At the close of the governments case, the Theriaults moved for a judgment of acquittal on all
charges against them pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. While
considering this motion, the District Court expressed doubts about whether the government had met
its burden of proof concerning Count Twothe importation conspiracy. The District Court
questioned whether the government had done anything to establish that Canada was the source of the
drugs supplied to the Theriaults by Sunday. In response to these concerns, the government conceded
that the Theriaults Rule 29 motion should be granted as to Count Two only.

       Neither Danny Theriault nor Jackaleen Theriault testified or called any witnesses in their
defense. The jury found both Theriaults guilty of the marijuana distribution conspiracy alleged in Count
One of the indictment, and Danny Theriault was sentenced to 210 months imprisonment.

II.      Discussion

         On appeal, Theriault raises two challenges to his conviction and two challenges to his sentence.

A. Conspiracy Conviction

        Theriault first argues that the dismissal of the second count of the indictment effectively
amended the indictment as a whole. This argument is without merit. In United States v. Miller, 

471 U.S.
130

, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the proposition that it constitutes an
unconstitutional amendment to drop from an indictment those allegations that are unnecessary to an
offense that is clearly contained within it. Count Two charged Theriault with conspiring to import a
controlled substance from Canada into the United States. The governments acknowledged failure to
present sufficient evidence to the jury that the drugs in question originated in Canada did not alter any
of the essential elements contained in Count One of the indictment returned by the grand jury because
Count One only required the government to prove that Theriault conspired to possess  controlled
substance with intent to distribute. Accordingly, the government did not violate the Fifth Amendments
grand jury guarantee in its prosecution of Theriault.1


         1
           The Grand Jury Clause provides: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. U.S. Const. amend. V.
                                                          3
         Relatedly, Theriaults argument that the District Court erred by not providing the jury a
multiple conspiracy instruction also must fail. Where, as here, only one conspiracy has been alleged
and proved[,] . . . defendants are not entitled to a multiple conspiracy charge. United States v. Romero-
Padilla, 

583 F.3d 126

, 130 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 

922 F.2d 934

, 962 (2d
Cir. 1990)). While Theriault arguably would have been entitled to a multiple conspiracy instruction if
Count Two had reached the jury, the government ended up only presenting one conspiracy to the
jurynamely, that Danny Theriault, David Sunday, Jackaleen Theriault, Denny Theriault, Joshua
Spaulding, Chad E. Fellers, and Jared Callahan conspired to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana.

        On appeal, Theriault alleges that [r]emoving the importation charge did not remove the
importation component of the conspiracy from the first count of the Indictment. In support of this
claim, Theriault points to the Manner and Means section accompanying Count One of the indictment.
In relevant part, that section states:
        It was part of the conspiracy that co-conspirator David Sunday would supply large quantities
        of marijuana from Canada to co-conspirators Jackaleen Theriault, a/k/a Ma, and her son,
        Danny Theriault[,] a/k/a Vinny, in the United States. Jackaleen and Danny Theriault, in turn,
        would redistribute quantities of this marijuana in the North County, New York, area, and
        Jackaleen would also transport quantities of this marijuana to other co-conspirators in the
        Albany, New York area, including but not limited to Jared Callahan, a/k/a Roo.

But, as discussed above, it is constitutionally permissible to drop from an indictment those allegations
that are unnecessary to an offense that is clearly contained within it. Here, the source of the drugs was
not a necessary allegation to the conspiracy alleged in Count One.

        Additionally, the very reason that the importation conspiracy charge was dropped is because the
parties and the District Court ultimately agreed that the jury had seen almost no evidence supporting
it, so there is no reason to think that the jury may have confused Theriaults involvement in a
hypothetically distinct importation conspiracy with his involvement in the conspiracy alleged in Count
One.

         The indictment charged Theriault with conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana. The jury was clearly and properly instructed on this charge,
and the government introduced overwhelming evidenceincluding wiretapped conversations,
eyewitness testimony, Theriaults post-arrest admissions, and physical evidencein support of a guilty
verdict.




                                                    4
B. Sentence

          Theriault also challenges the validity of his 210-month sentence. The District Court, in
accordance with the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) prepared by the United States Probation
Office, determined that Theriault was responsible for between 400 and 700 kilograms of marijuana,
yielding a base offense level of 28. U.S.S.G.  2D1.1(c)(6). When combined with a two-level
enhancement for obstruction of justice (which is unchallenged on appeal) and a criminal history
category of VI, this produced a Guidelines range of 168-210 months. Theriault first argues that the
District Court overstated the amount of marijuana attributable to him based on the evidence admitted
at trial.

         A district courts findings as to the quantity of narcotics involved in an offense are findings
of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. United States v. McLean, 

287 F.3d 127

, 133
(2d Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Prince, 

110 F.3d 921

, 924 (2d Cir. 1997)). To reject a finding of
fact as clearly erroneous, we must, upon review of the entire record, be left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Snow, 

462 F.3d 55

, 72 (2d Cir. 2006)
(quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, [w]here there is no drug seizure or the amount seized does
not reflect the scale of the offense, the court shall approximate the quantity of the controlled
substance. U.S.S.G.  2D1.1, cmt. n.12.

         According to the PSR, evidence at trial established that Theriault was responsible for 1081.9
pounds (490.79 kilograms) of marijuana. Therefore, in order to be entitled to resentencing with a lower
base offense level, Theriault must demonstrate that the PSR, as accepted by the District Court, was
clearly erroneous in including at least 90.79 kilograms (or 199.7 pounds) of the marijuana attributable
to him.

        Theriault makes numerous challenges to the calculations contained in the PSR. First, based on
Callahans testimony at trial, the PSR credited Theriault for being responsible for 210 pounds of
marijuana involved in four separate transactions that occurred at the Schenectady sewer plant in January
2006. The government now concedes that the PSR miscalculated this amount and that Callahans
testimony supports a drug quantity of only 160 pounds during this timeframea reduction of 50
pounds. Theriault contends that even this reduced number is too high, because while Callahan
acknowledged purchasing 40 pounds of marijuana on each of his final three transactions during this
time, he only purchased 10 pounds in his initial encounter. Although Callahan testified that his suppliers
had more marijuana with them, he provided absolutely no indication as to the size of the remaining
stash. The PSR evidently assumed that there were 40 total pounds of marijuana present at this initial
meeting at the Schenectady sewer plant because the Theriaults brought 40 pounds of marijuana to their
subsequent three transactions at this same location. While we have some doubts about this particular
estimate, we cannot say that the District Courts finding on this score was clearly erroneous.


                                                    5
         The PSR held Theriault responsible for 324 pounds of marijuana for February-March 2006. The
PSR arrived at that figure by combining two separate sources of evidence introduced at trial. Callahan
testified that, from February 2006 through the first week of March, he purchased approximately 40
pounds of marijuana on seven separate occasions280 pounds in total. Aditionally, on March 8,
2006, while returning from a drug deal in which Callahan had purchased 40 pounds of marijuana for
$98,000, Denny Theriault and Josh Spaulding were pulled over by police. Their car was searched, and
authorities uncovered $104,905 (including money identified by Callahan as his own) in cash from a
hidden compartment. The PSR determined that the $104,905 was the equivalent of 44 pounds of
marijuana and thus added that sum to Theriaults total. Theriault now argues that he has been
victimized by double-counting because the cash uncovered during the traffic stop clearly included the
proceeds from Callahans recent 40-pound purchase. We agree, and thus conclude that Theriault should
have been held responsible for 284 pounds of marijuana as a result of transactions conducted in
February-March 2006, rather than the 324 pounds identified in the PSR (this results in a further
reduction of 40 pounds to Theriaults total amount).

         Theriault next challenges the PSRs findingbased once again on Callahans testimonythat
360 pounds of marijuana were attributable to him based on several transactions that took place between
January and February 2007. Relying on Callahans testimony, the PSR concluded that Callahan
purchased 20 pounds of marijuana from the Theriaults on 18 separate occasions during this time.
Theriault claims that the PSR over-counted the number of transactions. According to Theriault,
Callahan testified that ten or twelve deals took place at a private apartment, roughly two took place
at the Skyline Motel, two occurred at the Super-8 Motel, and one took place right off of Exit 11 on the
Northway. Theriaulttaking the low end of Callahans approximationsthus claims that he should
only be held responsible for 15 separate transactions (or 60 fewer pounds of marijuana). We disagree.
In addition to the instances acknowledged by Theriault, Callahan also testified that he sometimes
purchased drugs from the Theriaults at the L&M motel. He also strongly implied that more than one
transaction took place off of Exit 11. Given this testimony, it was certainly reasonable for the PSRas
well as the District Courtto estimate that 18 separate transactions took place during this time.
         Finally, Theriault claims that the PSR overstated his drug activity in March and April 2007 by
double-counting evidence gleaned from a series of telephone intercepts and two separate seizures.
From March 10, 2007, to April 14, 2007, members of the conspiracy were recorded discussing six
separate transactions involving at least 124 pounds of marijuana. Separately, on March 18, 2007, officers
recovered $24,339 (the equivalent of 10 pounds of marijuana) following a search of Jackaleen Theriaults
car, and, on April 24, $21,105 (the equivalent of 8.9 pounds of marijuana) was discovered following a
search of a car parked at Theriaults home. Theriault now argues that this additional 18.9 pounds of
marijuana attributable to these two seizures must already have been accounted for in the wiretap
evidence considered by the PSR because the wiretaps took place during a similar time frame.

      Even assuming for the argument that 18.9 pounds was in fact double-counted, discounting this
amount, even when combined with the 90 pounds that we have already determined to have been

                                                   6
improperly attributed to him, is not enough for us to disturb the District Courts finding that Theriault
was responsible for in excess of 400 kilograms of marijuana.

         In addition to his challenges to specific findings made in the PSR, Theriault also argues that the
PSR is unreliable since so much of it is predicated on the uncorroborated testimony of Callahanan
admitted drug addict who was cooperating with the government. However, these matters bear on
[Callahans] credibility, which the District Court was free to determine for itself. 

McLean, 287 F.3d at
133

. We give a district courts findings as to the credibility of witnesses strong deference, and there
is nothing in the record to suggest that the District Courts credibility determinations in this case were
clearly erroneous. 

Id. (quotation marks 

omitted).

          Theriault lastly claims that the sentence imposed by the District Court was substantively
unreasonable. We review the reasonableness of a district courts sentencing determinations under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38

, 41 (2007); see generally Sims
v. Blot, 

534 F.3d 117

, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (A district court has abuse[d] its discretion if it based its ruling
on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or rendered a
decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions. (quotation marks omitted)).
While not presumptively reasonable, United States v. Eberhard, 

525 F.3d 175

, 179 (2d Cir. 2008), in the
overwhelming majority of cases, a Guidelines sentence will fall comfortably within the broad range of
sentences that would be reasonable in the particular circumstances. United States v. Fernandez, 

443 F.3d
19

, 27 (2d Cir. 2006). This is so because
          by the time an appeals court is considering a within-Guidelines sentence on review, both the
          sentencing judge and the Sentencing Commission will have reached the same conclusion as to
          the proper sentence in the particular case. That double determination significantly increases the
          likelihood that the sentence is a reasonable one.

Rita v. United States, 

551 U.S. 338

, 347 (2007). Having reviewed Theriaults arguments, we conclude that
the sentence imposed by the District Court was reasonable.

III.    Conclusion

       We have considered all of Theriaults remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.


                                                           FOR THE COURT,
                                                           Catherine OHagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

     2nd Offense Info
1-5455-cr
United States v. Theriault

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
                                SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL
RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURTS LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN
CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER
THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY
ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

           At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on
the 3rd day of December, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:    ROBERT D. SACK,
            DENNY CHIN,
            RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
                      Circuit Judges.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                     Appellee,
            -v.-                                          11-5455-cr
DANNY THERIAULT, AKA VINNY, DAVID SUNDAY,
AKA SNOOKTY, DENNY THERIAULT, JOSHUA
SPAULDING, AKA SPANK, CHAD E. FELLERS,
JARED CALLAHAN, AKA ROO,
                     Defendants,
JACKALEEN THERIAULT, AKA MA,
                     Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:              Malvina Nathanson, New York, New
                                      York.
FOR APPELLEE:                         Brenda K. Sannes, Carl G. Eurenius,
                                      Assistant United States Attorneys,
                                      for Richard S. Hartunian, United
                                      States Attorney for the Northern
                                      District of New York, Syracuse, New
                                      York.
           Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

Court for the Northern District of New York (Sharpe, C.J.).
           UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

           Defendant-appellant Jackaleen Theriault appeals from

the district court's judgment, entered August 19, 2009, following

a jury trial, convicting her of conspiracy to possess with intent

to distribute and distribution of over 100 kilograms of

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.  846, 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(B).    She was sentenced principally to 97 months

imprisonment, 10 years supervised release, and a fine of

$15,000.   We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying

facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues

presented for review.

           Theriault challenges her conviction in two respects.

First, she argues that the district court erroneously admitted

certain evidence at trial.    Second, Theriault argues that the

district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement to her

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines offense level for possession of a

dangerous weapon based on her use of gasoline to set her co-

defendant's car on fire.    See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
 2D1.1(b)(1).    Because, as she concedes, Theriault did not

object in either respect before the district court, we review

both claims for plain error.    See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United
States v. Bonilla, 

618 F.3d 102

, 111 (2d Cir. 2010), cert denied,


                                 -2-
_ U.S. _, 

131 S. Ct. 1698 

(2011); United States v. Snype, 

441

F.3d 119

, 138 (2d Cir. 2006).     We may only review a ruling not

challenged in the district court if it was error, the error was

plain, it affects substantial rights, and it has a serious effect

on the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.     United States

v. Logan, 

419 F.3d 172

, 177 (2d Cir. 2005).
A.   The Evidentiary Rulings

          We conclude that none of the challenged evidentiary

rulings resulted in plain error.     "[T]o have impacted [the

defendant's] substantial rights and the fairness, integrity or

public reputation of the judicial proceedings, the overall effect

of the [alleged] error must have been sufficiently great such

that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would not

have convicted [her] absent the error."     United States v. Marcus,

628 F.3d 36

, 42 (2d Cir. 2010).    "In making this determination,

we consider principally whether the government's case against the

defendant was strong; whether the evidence in question bears on

an issue that is plainly critical to the jury's decision, . . .;

whether the evidence was emphasized in the government's

presentation of its case and in its arguments to the jury; and

whether the case was close."    United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 

166
F.3d 102

, 108-09 (2d Cir. 1999) (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted); see also United States v. Riggi, 

541 F.3d 94

,

102, 105-08 (2d Cir. 2008) (considering these factors in plain

error analysis).




                                  -3-
          Applying this standard, we conclude that there was no

reasonable probability that the purported evidentiary errors

affected the outcome of the trial.    The investigating agent's

purportedly hearsay testimony was cumulative of other clearly

admissible evidence offered to prove the truth of the underlying

facts asserted.   The agent's lay opinion that a co-defendant's

instruction to "keep my place safe" meant to "keep his

possessions safe" was not unfairly prejudicial to Theriault.      The

investigating agent's testimony that a person identified in a

recorded call was under investigation for drugs and owned the

vehicle Theriault was driving when she was pulled over and about

the circumstances of a co-defendant's arrest did not bear "on an

issue that is plainly critical to the jury's decision."    Jean-

Baptiste, 166 F.3d at 108 

(quotation omitted).    Furthermore, the

government did not refer to any of this challenged testimony in

its summation.

          In light of the strength of the government's other

evidence, we cannot conclude that the jury would have reached a

different decision in the absence of these alleged errors.    The

evidence against Theriault included co-conspirator Jared
Callahans testimony regarding her distribution of marijuana to

him on numerous occasions; intercepted phone calls corroborating

his testimony and recording her engaging in sales of marijuana to

others; seizures of marijuana and money, including from a vehicle

she was driving; and her admission that she poured gasoline on

Callahans vehicle, which was set on fire.    Given this record,

any inadmissible testimony, "viewed in relation to the

                                -4-
prosecutions formidable array of admissible evidence, was merely

corroborative and cumulative."    United States v. Dukagjini, 

326

F.3d 45

, 62 (2d Cir. 2003).   Therefore, defendant failed to show

any plain error affecting her substantial rights or the fairness

of the proceedings.
B.   The Sentencing Enhancement

          We conclude that Theriault has failed to identify any

error, much less plain error, in the district courts

determination that her use of gasoline was connected to the

marijuana conspiracy.   The district court was required to find

the facts relevant to a sentencing enhancement by a preponderance

of the evidence.   See United States v. Hertular, 

562 F.3d 433

,
447 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Garcia, 

413 F.3d 201

,

220 n.15 (2d Cir. 2005)) (assessing whether evidence was

sufficient to find that defendant "more likely than not"

possessed a dangerous weapon in connection with the crime).

Theriault set fire to Callahan's car hours after he took

marijuana from her without paying.      The next day, Theriault's son

and co-conspirator told another co-conspirator that "my mom burnt

[Callahan's] car last night" and he intended to burn down

Callahan's house because "I want my money."     (A 46-47).   The

determination that Theriault's act of arson was in response to

the theft of marijuana and was intended to send a threat to the

drug thief was entirely reasonable.     Thus, the district court did

not err in finding that Theriault's use of gasoline was more

likely than not in furtherance of the drug conspiracy.



                                  -5-
          We have considered Theriaults remaining arguments and

conclude that they are without merit.   Accordingly, we hereby

AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.


                              FOR THE COURT:
                              Catherine OHagan Wolfe, Clerk
                                                        
		
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6924 Holmes Ave. Brainerd, MN 56401+5002 46.304000°, -94.253100°
Home Facts:

Home Value
    $125,000-149,999

Phone Numbers:

    218-839-9821
    218-839-0961
    218-829-0644

Email Addresses:
    tikacallahan@yahoo.com
    jaranguifdhu@hotmail.com

Primary Residence:
6924 Holmes Ave. Brainerd, MN 56401+5002 46.304000°, -94.253100°
Home Facts:

Home Value
    $125,000-149,999

Phone Numbers:

    218-829-0644

Email Addresses:

    emilycallahan34@gmail.com
    jaranguifdhu@hotmail.com

Scores:3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
Wealth (52)
Donor (58)
Travel (73)

Demographics:

Ethnicity
    Western European
Language
    English
Religion
    Catholic

Family:

Children
= 2