"Though we interpret the phrase 'in furtherance of the conspiracy' broadly, a statement that simply informs the listener of the declarant's criminal activities is not made in furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. Cazares, 521 F.3d 991, 999 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation omitted). Although Vallejo apparently concedes that Munoz's statement was made during a drug conspiracy to which they were both parties, he contends that the statement was merely idle chatter that in no way furthered the conspiracy.

While “a statement that simply informs the listener of the declarant's criminal activities is not made in furtherance of the conspiracy,” “we interpret the phrase in furtherance of the conspiracy broadly.” United States v. Cazares, 521 F.3d 991, 999 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Davis, 457 F.3d 817, 825 (8th Cir.2006)). “Statements made ‘in furtherance’ of a conspiracy include those which identify the coconspirators or the coconspirators' supply source for the illegal drugs and those statements which discuss a coconspirator's role in the conspiracy.” United States v. Arias, 252 F.3d 973, 977 (8th Cir.2001) (internal citation omitted).

While "a statement that simply informs the listener of the declarant's criminal activities is not made in furtherance of the conspiracy," "we interpret the phrase in furtherance of the conspiracy broadly." United States v. Cazares, 521 F.3d 991, 999 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Davis, 457 F.3d 817, 825 (8th Cir. 2006)). "Statements made 'in furtherance' of a conspiracy include those which identify the coconspirators or the coconspirators' supply source for the illegal drugs and those statements which discuss a coconspirator's role in the conspiracy."

Id." United States v. Cazares, 521 F.3d 991, 994 n.2 (8th Cir. 2008). Appellant first challenges the admission of exhibits 101-138, which consisted of text messages between Magana and the 6140 number, arguing that the government failed to sufficiently identify Appellant as the number's user.

The phrase "in furtherance of the conspiracy" is broadly interpreted. See United States v. Cazares , 521 F.3d 991, 998-99 (8th Cir. 2008). Any statement discussing the supply source, identifying a coconspirator's role, indicating the quantity of drugs, or providing information on the enterprise's scope furthers the conspiracy.

Smith's oblique statement was insignificant in comparison to that testimony. See United States v. Iron Hawk , 612 F.3d 1031, 1038 (8th Cir. 2010) ("We will not reverse a judgment on the basis of erroneous evidentiary rulings absent a showing that those rulings had a substantial influence on the jury's verdict."); United States v. Cazares , 521 F.3d 991, 999 (8th Cir. 2008) ("Even if these statements were admitted in error, it was harmless because the government presented additional, and much more substantial, evidence linking [the defendant] to the conspiracy...."). Finally, Myers argues the district court improperly applied the four-level sentencing enhancement for knowingly misrepresenting or knowingly marketing as another substance a mixture or substance containing fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue.

We review interpretation of the rules of evidence de novo and admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cazares , 521 F.3d 991, 998 (8th Cir. 2008). A statement is not hearsay if it "is offered against an opposing party and ... was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy."

United States v. Whitlow , 815 F.3d 430, 434 (8th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). "Coconspirator statements are in furtherance of the conspiracy if they discuss the supply source for the illegal drugs or identify a coconspirator's role in the conspiracy." United States v. Cazares , 521 F.3d 991, 999 (8th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). A declarant need not be indicted as a coconspirator to qualify under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).

The court overruled Young's objection and allowed the government to elicit the testimony. “We review the district court's interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) de novo....” United States v. Cazares, 521 F.3d 991, 998 (8th Cir.2008). However, we “review the district court's admission of the out-of-court statements as coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) for an abuse of discretion, ‘keeping in mind that its discretion is particularly broad in a conspiracy trial.’ ”

"We review the district court's interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) de novo . . . ." United States v. Cazares, 521 F.3d 991, 998 (8th Cir. 2008). However, we "review the district court's admission of the out-of-court statements as coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) for an abuse of discretion, 'keeping in mind that its discretion is particularly broad in a conspiracy trial.'"