Full opinion text
HEANEY, Circuit Judge. Ross Alan Milburn was convicted for maintaining a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848 (1982) and for conspiracy to commit tax fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on the former charge and a concurrent five-year sentence and a $10,000 fine on the latter. Three of Milburn’s associates, Gary Darnall, Terry Crafton and Paula Lewis, were convicted on cocaine distribution and conspiracy charges in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and they were sentenced respectively to two consecutive ten-year terms of imprisonment, a six-year term of imprisonment, and a five-year term of imprisonment with a $5,000 fine. Finally, Ross E. and Marion Milburn (Ross Alan Milburn’s parents) and Ronald and Paula Throop (Ross Alan Milburn’s sister and brother-in-law) were convicted of conspiring to commit tax fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Marion Milburn was sentenced to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine; Ross E. Milburn was sentenced to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine; Ronald Throop was sentenced to a year in prison; and Paula Throop was sentenced to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine. On appeal, each of these defendants raises multiple arguments which we consider in turn. I. ROSS ALAN MILBURN The principal issues Milburn raises on appeal are: (1) whether the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) freezing his assets violated his sixth amendment right to counsel; (2) whether certain records, testimony, and summary exhibits were improperly admitted into evidence, (3) whether the district court improperly accepted the government’s use of a “net worth” theory to support the forfeiture count in the indictment; (4) whether the district court properly interpreted the “five or more” element of 21 U.S.C. § 848; and (5) whether Milburn’s prison sentence was cruel and unusual. A. Milburn’s Sixth Amendment/Forfeiture Claim. About seven months before Milburn’s trial, the government sought an ex parte restraining order under 21 U.S.C. § 848 to prevent Milburn, his parents, and the Throops from selling or moving interests in twenty-one pieces of property which it alleged were purchased with profits of crime. The district court granted a ninety-day TRO which, after separate hearings, was extended until an adversary hearing could be held. At the adversary hearing, the magistrate found that the government had carried its burden as to all but three of the enumerated items of property. As a result, the district court extended the TRO until the trial’s end. For reversal, Milburn argues that the district court’s failure to follow proper procedure in restraining his assets deprived him improperly of his sixth amendment right to retain counsel of his choice. We turn first to the question of whether the district court complied with proper procedure for restraining Milburn’s use of his property. The relative rarity of forfeiture provisions in criminal statutes throughout American history suggests that criminal forfeitures are extreme sanctions. This compels us to scrutinize closely the constitutional implications of ex parte criminal forfeitures or restraints. This point is underscored by the in personam nature of this type of forfeiture; the guilt of the defendant is at issue, and the loss of his property operates as an additional criminal penalty. See United States v. Long, 654 F.2d 911, 914 (3d Cir.1981). Under the circumstances, the process that is due becomes that much greater. In pertinent part, 21 U.S.C. § 848(d) (1982) provides: The district courts of the United States * * * shall have jurisdiction to enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or to take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, in connection with any property or other interest subject to forfeiture under this section, as they shall deem proper. The highly discretionary nature of the statute has led the courts to limit their own discretion under the statute, discretion which otherwise might be susceptible to abuse. After the temporary restraining order had been issued in this case, but before the adversary hearing was held, the district court properly invoked Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, which sets forth the standards for ex parte restraining orders. See United States v. Spilotro, 680 F.2d 612, 617 (9th Cir.1982). At the adversary hearing, the district court also approved use of the federal rules of evidence, including the proscription of hearsay evidence. The standard for an in personam forfeiture proceeding under the CCE or RICO statutes has been set out by three other courts of appeals. The Third Circuit standard is the most often-cited enumeration of the criteria governing restraining orders, and is a standard with which we agree. Before a court can issue [preconviction restraining orders that prohibit transfer of a defendant’s property], however, the government must demonstrate that it is likely to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of two things: one, that the defendant is guilty of violating the Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute and two, that the profits or properties at issue are subject to forfeiture under the provisions of section 848(a)(2). * * * In addition, these determinations must be made on the basis of a full hearing; the government cannot rely on indictments alone. [Citations omitted.] Long, 654 F.2d at 915. See also United States v. Crozier, 674 F.2d 1293, 1297-98 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Veon, 538 F.Supp. 237, 245 (E.D.Cal.1982). Given these standards, we do not believe that the district court adhered to the principles of due process. In the government’s Motion for Restraining Order, the United States Attorney declared that “the Court’s power to so act [in entering restraining orders under § 848(d)] is plenary and may be entered sua sponte, or ex parte without the necessity of a hearing.” This is an incorrect statement of the law. As the district court subsequently noted, and as we have noted above, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 is incorporated by inference in the “restraining orders or prohibitions, or * * * other actions” which the district court may authorize under section 848(d). Any other policy would allow the essential decision on the restraining order affecting defendants’ assets and ability to pay retained counsel to be made ex parte without retained counsel and on the basis of affidavits or indictments. Although the preliminary injunction hearing and the trial which follow might offer some protection of defendants’ rights, they are too little and too late to guarantee the protections of retained counsel. Other courts have taken this position in cases less egregious than this one, cases in which the sixth amendment is not implicated. In Crozier, the Ninth Circuit used an imperative in interpreting the procedural requirements of section 848(d): In the absence of specific language to the contrary, the district court must apply the standards of Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires an immediate hearing whenever a temporary restraining order has been granted ex parte. 674 F.2d at 1297. See also Spilotro, 680 F.2d at 617 (citing the quoted passage with approval). The district court’s belated recognition in this case that section 848(d) implicitly relies on Rule 65 is insufficient to cure the effects of its earlier noncompliance with the procedural safeguards of the rule. Rule 65(b) provides a checklist of the procedural requirements which the district court disregarded. First, it must “clearly appear[ ] from specific facts” that “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant” before an adversary hearing can be convened. [Emphasis added.] The district court’s order of August 23, 1982 (which omits reference to Rule 65) makes no reference to the strength or specificity of the underlying facts and suggests only that defendants “might place certain property beyond the jurisdiction of this Court * * *.” (Emphasis added.) Second, before a temporary restraining order is granted under Rule 65, the applicant’s attorney must certify to the court, in writing, the efforts made to notify the opposing party and the reasons supporting his claim that notice is unnecessary. Neither the district court’s order nor the government’s affidavit refers to the ex parte nature of the temporary restraining order nor do they comply with this notice requirement. In addition, the district court’s order does not “define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice.” The order also exceeds the ten-day expiration date by eighty days without good cause shown, and the record does not reflect that the second hearing was “set down for hearing at the earliest possible time and [took] precedence of all matters except other matters of the same character.” Our disapproval of the district court’s failure to comply with these requirements is not an elevation of form over substance. We reiterate that the forfeiture portion of the CCE statute places great importance on the temporary restraining order, at least as regards non-indigents’ right to retained counsel. If the temporary restraining order freezes the defendant’s assets, additional hearings are unavailing because the defendant’s ability to pay counsel has already been foreclosed. As a result, compliance with the procedural safeguards of Rule 65 at the outset is essential if we are to guarantee the full measure of defendants’ sixth amendment rights. We next consider the effect of the restraining order on Milburn’s assets. Although the briefs do not specifically enumerate the nature or value of Milburn’s assets after the order, Milburn’s brief claims that he was reduced to the status of a “pauper.” Logically, this conclusion is supported by extent of the list of property affected and by the government’s use of the net worth method to trace the path of Milburn’s alleged drug profits. The list of property seized appears to be a thorough catalogue of Milburn’s holdings: eight parcels of land, two cars, a truck, a boat, and assorted furniture. In addition, the government presented evidence in support of its net worth theory which established that, for the time of the investigation, Mil-burn’s legitimate income was minimal, but that he had spent over $200,000 under assumed names or through others on specific property over three years. Given his limited financial means and the breadth of assets restrained by the district court, we can only conclude that Milburn was stripped of most of his assets and would have been severely hampered in his ability to pay his chosen counsel. The third question we must answer is the extent to which the sixth amendment protects non-indigents’ choice of retained counsel, and, if so, whether Milburn’s conviction must be reversed. The Constitution recognizes solvent defendants’ interest in retained counsel. In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), the Supreme Court discussed the dilemma of the Scottsboro rape defendants, for whom the entire county bar was appointed counsel. Before voiding this subterfuge, the Supreme Court observed that “It is hardly necessary to say that the right to counsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice.” Id. at 53, 53 S.Ct. at 58. The Eighth Circuit has also recognized this right: “In general, defendants are free to employ counsel of their own choice and the courts are afforded little leeway in interfering with that choice.” United States v. Cox, 580 F.2d 317, 321 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075, 99 S.Ct. 851, 59 L.Ed.2d 43 (1979), cited with approval in United States v. Agosto, 675 F.2d 965, 969 (8th Cir.1982). The D.C. Circuit has stressed even greater recognition of this right. Although that Court denied a motion for continuance to secure counsel after the original counsel withdrew, it phrased in strong language the sixth amendment’s protection of non-indigents’ choice of counsel: An essential element of the Sixth Amendment’s protection of the right to the assistance of counsel is that a defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to secure counsel of his own choosing. * * * An accused who is financially able to retain counsel must not be deprived of the opportunity to do so. United States v. Burton, 584 F.2d 485, 488-89 (D.C.Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1069, 99 S.Ct. 837, 59 L.Ed.2d 34 (1979). This right is generally regarded as a qualified right which “must be carefully balanced against the public’s interest in the orderly administration of justice.” Burton, 584 F.2d at 489. What is not so widely discussed, however, is whether a solvent defendant who is denied chosen counsel and who is not impeding the administration of justice, must show prejudice from this denial in order to obtain relief. Only the Ninth Circuit has addressed this issue directly. In United States v. Ray, 731 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir.1984), that Court considered a claim on facts similar to the case at bar and concluded that “[d]enial of this qualified right is reversible error regardless of whether prejudice is shown.” The Ray Court relied on Releford v. United States, 288 F.2d 298, 301 (9th Cir.1961), which reversed and granted a new trial where the defendant was deprived of his choice of retained counsel. We find merit in the Ninth Circuit’s view; Milburn, however, is in no position to raise this issue on appeal. Even though he had some contact with Minnesota counsel in this matter, he did not request that the district court appoint that counsel, nor did he request the services of any other named attorney. We also note that Milburn’s appointed counsel represented him ably with a thorough and aggressive defense. This is not a case in which counsel was minimally competent; rather, we find that Mil-burn’s counsel fully discharged his duties in protecting Milburn’s rights. Thus, we conclude that, under the circumstances, Milburn’s right to chosen counsel was not violated. B. Use of the Net Worth Theory as a Means of Forfeiture. 1. The Propriety of the Net Worth Method. In pertinent part, the CCE statute provides that (2) Any person who is convicted under paragraph (1) of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise shall forfeit to the United States— (A) the profits obtained by him in such enterprise, and (B) any of his interest in, claim against, or property or contractual rights of any kind affording a source of influence over, such enterprise. 21 U.S.C. § 848(a)(2) (1982). Milburn argues that the district court’s application of this statute in his case was improper for two reasons: first, the government improperly relied on a net worth theory in determining what property would be forfeited under the act; and second, in developing its net worth theory, the government was allowed to introduce testimony and records which were irrelevant, confusing and prejudicial. We disagree on both points. First, we address the propriety of the net worth theory. The government has long relied on this theory in tax evasion cases to demonstrate that a taxpayer’s expenditures in a given period exceed his legitimate or reported income. See, e.g., Capone v. United States, 51 F.2d 609 (7th Cir.1931). In the context of income tax evasion, the Supreme Court has explicitly approved its use, with certain safeguards. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954); United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 503, 63 S.Ct. 1233, 87 L.Ed. 1546 (1943). In Holland, however, the Court warned that the method was “so fraught with danger for the innocent that the courts must closely scrutinize its use.” Holland, 348 U.S. at 125, 75 S.Ct. at 130. Nevertheless, we feel that that standard was met here. The facts and evidence in this case are crucial to distinguishing it from the Holland case. Perhaps the most important factual element distinguishing this case from Holland is that Milburn himself, in consensually recorded conversations with a government witness, refuted the possibility of a preexisting legitimate source for his remarkably high net worth. In a series of remarks to Ron Humphries, Milburn warned that “If they can prove its dope money we’re all gonna go down for conspiring to continue a criminal enterprise.” More specifically, he confessed his parents’ involvement in the conspiracy to evade taxes: and the fact is * * * I did put a lot of money into my mom and dad’s house * * you know that, and Mike Richmond does too. Subsequently, when he confided to Humphries his hypothetical defense to the forfeiture charge, he undercuts his argument on the net worth point and resolves the argument for the government: Why couldn’t my father have had $50,-000.00 in a shoe box all his life, they can’t prove it, can they? * * * my dad’s got this covered * * *, * * * I’m covered. I’ve been covering my ass ever since this, all this shit started. We also note that the government proved the existence of a lucrative drug distribution enterprise over several years in several states and involving several principals. In addition, government evidence suggested that, for the time in question, this enterprise produced profits of approximately $200,000. (Milburn suggests the figure is closer to $85,000; either way, we regard the illegal income as significant.) Moreover, the government’s financial evidence was thorough; for the period in question, the evidence appears to foreclose all leads which might have suggested other, legitimate sources of income. See Holland, 348 U.S. at 127, 75 S.Ct. at 131. Tax returns, expenditures and business records of the principals and even of Debbie Martin’s store, Mother Earth, confirm the thoroughness of the government’s inquiry. In light of these circumstances, we believe that the district court properly used the net worth theory, and we find it unnecessary to impose upon the government the formality of a burden of an opening net worth statement. In addition to the factual distinctions between Holland and the case at bar, we note that this case departs from the classic income tax case involving net worth issues. This case involves net worth and specific items of property, and where the government shows an accumulation of income far beyond the defendant’s legitimate means, an opening net worth figure is not essential. We note, however, that this departure from Holland’s dicta applies only to the unique facts of this case. Under other circumstances, an opening net worth might be necessary to assure that defendants are protected from the danger of circumstantial evidence. 2. Evidentiary Support for the Net Worth Theory. Next we deal with Milburn’s objections to the evidence that was actually presented in support of the government’s net worth theory. He waived any objection to evidence regarding expenditures he made on his own home (“the Henderson House”), but challenged on grounds of relevance and materiality a substantial number of other exhibits, including documents involving loans made to his parents and the Throops to start their construction companies; the federal income tax returns of his parents, the Throops, Debra Elayer, and Debbie Martin; and documents relating to the construction and improvement of his parents’ and the Throops’ homes. Milburn maintains also that some of this evidence is hearsay which was not made in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that admission of certain testimony violated the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. The number of exhibits in question is far too great to discuss each individually; we have reviewed the record thoroughly, however, and we believe that discussion of several of the major types of evidence to which Mil-burn objects should resolve the general problems presented in this aspect of Mil-burn’s appeal. We note that much of the evidence in question is disputed under Fed.R.Evid. 401-03. This Court has recognized the broad discretion vested in the trial court in determining the relevance of evidence. The trial court’s decision is subject to reversal only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Swarek, 656 F.2d 331, 337 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1034, 102 S.Ct. 573, 70 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981). Much of Milburn’s argument goes to the relevance of records of loans taken out in 1979 by his parents and in 1978 by the Throops, the proceeds of which were deposited respectively in the Creative Builders and P & R accounts and used, in part, to build the couples’ homes. These accounts were used to conceal Milburn’s drug profits as the real and personal property of his family. We find no abuse of discretion in the admission of this evidence. Any potential hearsay problems are resolved by Mil-burn’s attorney’s stipulation at trial regarding the authenticity and the “business record” aspect of this evidence. Fed.R. Evid. 803(6). In addition, the government properly points out that the loan arrangements and the financing of the Milburns’ and Throops’ homes are “fact[s] * * * of consequence” under Fed.R.Evid. 401 because homes were subject to forfeiture under the CCE count and the transactions involving these properties were among the overt acts specified in the tax evasion count of the indictment. We also note that the loan evidence was an important and admissible part of the government’s case in that the timing of the loan was useful in distinguishing illegal from legal income that had been invested in the homes. In the case of the Throops, stipulated testimony was read into the record regarding over $30,000 in currency which was deposited in the P & R Construction account before the loan proceeds were deposited. These currency deposits correlate with entries on a ledger kept by Debbie Martin, which apparently reflect monies obtained from drug sales. Only by determining how much of the account was loan proceeds on a given date could the government show which portion of the account derived from drug sales. Similarly, evidence of the elder Milburns’ loan and deposit into the Creative Builders account was relevant to distinguish legitimate from illegal deposits in that account. Accordingly, we find that the loan evidence was relevant and that it was properly admitted. Milburn also challenges the exhibits relating to loans received by both couples on the ground that the makers were not present in court and were unavailable for cross-examination. We address this issue separately from our determination of the hearsay question because we recognize that the sixth amendment’s confrontation clause is not perfectly congruent to the hearsay rule. Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 86, 91 S.Ct. 210, 218, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970). We have previously evaluated problems under the confrontation clause according to the potential prejudice a defendant faces due to the declarant’s unavailability. Thus, we consider whether the out-of-court statement bears traditional indicia of reliability, whether it was crucial to the government’s case, whether the jury had an opportunity to weigh the credibility of the extrajudicial statement, and whether appropriate instructions were given by the trial judge. United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 92 (8th Cir.1979), citing United States v. Scholle, 553 F.2d 1109,1119 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940, 98 S.Ct. 432, 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977). Under the circumstances, we find that the loan documents do not run afoul of the sixth amendment. Their authenticity was stipulated, they were simply a circumstantial part of the government’s net worth theory, and they appear to have been properly presented to the jury. Thus, we find no constitutional defect in this evidence in light of the unavailability of Milburn’s relatives. We also approve the district court’s admission of evidence dealing with work done for or paid for by the Throops and the elder Milburns, for much the same reasoning we use in approving the evidence regarding the loans and the tax returns. This evidence is relevant as part of the government’s net worth theory; it functions in much the same way the tax returns and the loans do in the government’s case, for this evidence helps to confirm that the two couples were far outspending their reported income. We disagree with Mil-burn’s claim that the government did not tie these expenditures to his drug profits. The correlations between entries in the drug ledger, currency deposits and expenditures on the homes amply support this link. Moreover, so does Milburn’s statement to Debbie Martin, “Paula and Ron [Throop] will need money * * * so give them what they ask for;” and his statement to Humphries, “I did put a lot of money into my mom and dad’s house.” Further evidence of this link can be found in the fact that, after Debbie Martin’s death, Milburn transferred to his parents’ home the unused portion of a cash downpayment to a carpet supplier for work at Debbie Martin’s store. After careful review, therefore, we find that the evidence of improvements done for the elder Milburns and the Throops was also properly admitted at trial. Milburn also challenges the admission of the tax returns of the elder Mil-burns, the Throops, Debbie Martin and Susan Elayer. We have no trouble determining that these documents are relevant to the tax evasion conspiracy. Indeed, by admitting these documents, the district court did much to solve the problems raised by Milburn’s argument regarding opening net worth, for the tax returns account for whatever sources of legitimate income the conspirators might have enjoyed during the life of the conspiracy. The Supreme Court has implicitly endorsed this practice. Calderon v. United States, 348 U.S. 160, 166, 75 S.Ct. 186, 189, 99 L.Ed. 202 (1954); Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 157-58, 75 S.Ct. 194, 199-200, 99 L.Ed. 192 (1954); Holland, 348 U.S. at 133, 75 S.Ct. at 134. Moreover, this Court has approved the admission of the tax returns of one conspirator against another where his “personal finances [are] * * * intertwined” with the object of the conspiracy. United States v. White, 671 F.2d 1126, 1132 (8th Cir.1982). See also United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 146-47 (2d Cir.1979) (In a CCE case, income tax returns are relevant to show legitimate sources of income in light of large unexplained assets.) and cases cited therein. Therefore, the tax returns are relevant. We also find that the tax returns were properly admitted under the coconspirator exception to the definition of hearsay. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Although the tax returns were not specified as overt acts of the tax evasion conspiracy, the superseding indictment specifies that the conspiracy occurred from 1974 until the date of the indictment, which includes the years of the tax returns in question. We believe the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy. United States v. Kiefer, 694 F.2d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir.1982). In addition, as we note above, this Court has explicitly approved the admission of co'conspirators’ tax returns. White, 671 F.2d at 1132. Accordingly, we find no error in the admission of the specified tax returns. We have not discussed each piece of evidence mentioned by appellant Milburn in his lengthy appendix, nor need we do so. We have carefully reviewed the trial record, however, and we believe that the reasoning we have set forth in this section of the opinion extends to all of the evidence in question. Under the circumstances of the net worth theory developed by the government in this case, we cannot say that this evidence was erroneously admitted. C. The CCE Statute: The “five or more” element. 1. Proof of the “five or more” requirement. Under 21 U.S.C. § 848(b), a defendant must satisfy five elements to be guilty of engaging in a CCE. They include: 1) a felony violation of the federal narcotics laws; 2) as part of a continuing series of violations; 3) in concert with five or more persons; 4) for whom the defendant is an organizer or supervisee 5) from which he derives substantial income or resources. United States v. Lurz, 666 F.2d 69, 75 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1005, 102 S.Ct. 1642, 71 L.Ed.2d 874 (1982). For reversal, Milburn argues that the government has not proven either that he organized or supervised the group or that the group comprised five or more persons. Rather, he maintains that he was an equal partner with two or three others in the drug business. Other Courts of Appeals have construed the “five or more” language and the supervisory clause broadly. Several courts have pointed out that the supervisory clause (“a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management”) includes disjunctive language which obliges the government to prove that the defendant occupied only one of those positions. United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1034 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136, 102 S.Ct. 2965, 73 L.Ed.2d 1354 (1982); United States v. Mannino, 635 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir.1980); United States v. Jeffers, 532 F.2d 1101, 1115-16 n. 17 (7th Cir.1976), aff'd, 432 U.S. 137, 97 S.Ct. 2207, 53 L.Ed.2d 168 (1977). In addition, the courts have generally held that the five subordinates in the enterprise need not act together; it is sufficient to sustain the prosecution if the superior works with a total of five participants. Phillips, 664 F.2d at 1034; Mannino, 635 F.2d at 116; United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 157 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 907, 100 S.Ct. 1833, 64 L.Ed.2d 260 (1980); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316, 320 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 930, 98 S.Ct. 417, 54 L.Ed.2d 290 (1977). Careful review of the trial transcript suggests that Milburn occupied a sufficiently central role to be regarded as holding “a position of organizer, a supervisory position or any other position of management.” In addition, it seems clear that at least five others participated in the enterprise in such a way that they could be said to have fallen under Milburn’s managerial authority. Regarding the requirement of five co-participants, the record seems clear. As the government points out, Milburn apparently concedes that he supervised the activities of three of the participants: Ronald Humphries, Michael Richmond, and Mark McClellan. The record suggests that Alan Milburn was involved in marijuana sales as early as 1974. Ronald Humphries (who pled guilty to separate charges and testified at Milburn’s trial as part of his plea) assisted Milburn by making monthly trips to Texas to return with approximately 300-400 pounds of marijuana per trip which the two packaged for sale in southeastern Missouri. By 1977, Milburn began selling Colombian marijuana, and Humphries made his trips to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to purchase the marijuana from Gary Darnall. In 1979, Milburn and Darnall moved out of marijuana and into cocaine sales; according to Humphries, they put up the money and he served as courier of drugs and money. Humphries made several trips to Florida that summer, but ended his business relationship with Milburn later that year. He was replaced as courier by Michael Richmond who had been one of Mil-burn’s marijuana dealer-customers for several years. Richmond made several trips to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to purchase cocaine from Gary Darnall, and to Dallas, Texas, to deliver cocaine to Ralph Ed Purdy. When Richmond was arrested for selling cocaine to a DEA agent in 1980, Mark McClellan replaced him as Milburn’s courier, making several cocaine delivery trips to Dallas and Fort Lauderdale with a locked briefcase. In addition, McClellan delivered cocaine to Michael Adkins and Terry Crafton in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Kennett, Missouri. McClellan’s period of employment with Milburn ended in January, 1981, when the two had a falling out over, among other things, Milburn’s attempt to title a car in McClellan’s name. Thus, the three appear inextricably entwined in the enterprise as Milburn’s subordinates. Several other participants round out the required number. Alicia Dalton Buchanan, Humphries’ then-girlfriend, was not indicted, but participated in the cocaine purchases. According to her trial testimony, she assisted Humphries in February, 1979, on a trip to Florida to purchase cocaine and, by herself, made two trips to Florida to buy cocaine on orders of Humphries and Mil-burn in the summer of 1979. She was also present at frequent business discussions in the summer of 1978 through early 1979. Susan Elayer, another of Milburn’s girlfriends, also played a role in the enterprise. In a consensually recorded conversation with Humphries, who was cooperating with the government, Milburn himself indicated that Elayer was to be Humphries’ contact in Milburn’s absence. In addition, McClellan used Elayer’s car on at least two cocaine trips for Milburn. McClellan also testified that Elayer called on him to pick up the money from cocaine sales along with the briefcase that was typically used to transport the cocaine. Ralph Ed Purdy, Milburn’s contact in Dallas, could also be said to be subject to Milburn’s supervisory or managerial control. McClellan testified that, when he was in Dallas, Purdy relayed Milburn’s orders to McClellan to stop for a drug sale in Little Rock and, on another occasion, to contact Milburn for further orders. Although this degree of contact and involvement with the enterprise was not intimate, it suggests that Purdy worked at Milburn’s bidding during the life of the enterprise and served as a conduit for his orders. Thus, Purdy’s conduct clearly falls within the ambit of the statute. The elder Milburns and the Throops also qualify as subordinates in the enterprise who satisfy the statute’s five-person requirement. Regarding drug sales, McClellan testified that he and Milburn stopped at the Throops’ home for expense money and for cocaine packaging materials. The two couples’ involvement in the concealment of Milburn’s drug profits also cements their connection to Milburn as his subordinates. The government’s financial evidence under its networth theory amply demonstrates their complicity in the scheme. Moreover, Milburn’s letters describing his involvement in “real estate,” and testimony describing Milburn’s preference for highway frontage lots (which preference he communicated to his father and sister) confirms that the efforts the four expended on behalf of the enterprise were for Milburn’s benefit. Finally, Debbie Martin, Milburn’s then-girlfriend, appears to have been involved with the enterprise in such a way as to satisfy the statute. Although Martin’s involvement antedates the period of time set out in the superseding indictment (1977-82), she was also involved from 1977 until her death in September, 1979. In October, 1977, Milburn was jailed in Arkansas for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. (The jury did not know of this conviction.) He served one-and-one-half years of a ten-year sentence; and, in his absence, Martin managed the marijuana business and instructed Humphries regarding his trips to Florida. Alicia Dalton Buchanan (who was then living with Humphries) testified that, while Milburn was serving his sentence, Debbie Martin frequently visited their home and often brought a ledger to plan Humphries’ drug trips. In addition, Milburn’s and Martin’s correspondence during Milburn’s period of incarceration suggests that he was directing her actions as she managed the drug business. Milburn’s frequent references to the conduct of the principals (particularly Humphries) and his use of private code words (“star pines” and “balforia” for Mexican and Colombian marijuana) confirm that Debbie Martin was a subordinate in the enterprise directed by Milburn. Thus, in reviewing the record and the evidence, we can only conclude that under the prevailing interpretation of section 848, Milburn occupied a position of authority in the enterprise and directed the efforts of at least five others. 2. The jury instructions. Milburn also complains that the trial court’s jury instructions misled the jury; Instructions 17 and 18 laid out the “five or more” element and the “organizer or supervisor” elements of the statute respectively. Milburn contends that the separation of the instructions suggests that the elements are separate, so the jury might have reasoned that, although it found that Milburn acted with five others, it need not have found that he supervised the group. We disagree. Any potential confusion was resolved by the final sentence of Instruction 18, the supervisory instruction: “It is not necessary that the defendant’s relationship to the five persons be of the same type at all times and it may differ with respect to certain persons with whom he acted in concert.” By including this reference to the “five or more” element in the supervisory instruction, the district court made clear that, for Milburn to be guilty, he must have supervised the group. D. Milburn’s Sentence: The Constitutionality of Life Without Parole Under 21 U.S.C. § 848. Milburn also argues that his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 848 — life imprisonment without possibility of parole — is cruel and unusual punishment proscribed by the eighth amendment. Although we acknowledge that the district court’s use of the maximum sentence in this case was severe, we cannot say that, under the prevailing case law, the sentence violates the Constitution. In pertinent part, 21 U.S.C. § 848 provides that (a)(1) Any person who engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years and which may be up to life imprisonment, to a fine of not more than $100,000, and to the forfeiture prescribed in paragraph (2); except that if any person engaged in such activity after one or more prior convictions of him under this section have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 20 years and which may be up to life imprisonment, to a fine of not more than $200,000, and to the forfeiture prescribed in paragraph (2). (c) In the case of any sentence imposed under this section, imposition or execution of such sentence shall not be suspended, probation shall not be granted, and section 4202 of Title 18 and the Act of July 15, 1932 (D.C.Code, secs. 24-203 to 24-207), shall not apply. 21 U.S.C. § 848(a), (c) (1982). In its most recent discussion of the eighth amendment, the Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s reversal of a conviction for uttering a $100 worthless check. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). Because that offense was the defendant’s seventh nonviolent felony, he was sentenced under South Dakota’s recidivist statute, which provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment without parole. In voiding that penalty for disproportionate severity, the Supreme Court articulated three objective factors to guide appellate review of sentences under the eighth amendment. First, the reviewing court should “look to the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty.” Second, it should “compare the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction.” Finally, it should “compare the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Id., 103 S.Ct. at 3010. In comparing the gravity of the offense with the harshness of the penalty, we must observe that the penalty is very harsh indeed. Nevertheless, Milburn’s offense was also great. As the government points out, the organizing and running of Milburn’s continuing criminal enterprise over four years involved scores, if not hundreds, of felonies as he distributed marijuana and cocaine and as he used the telephone to facilitate the commission of these offenses. In addition, the record confirms that Mil-burn had three previous felony convictions for drug possession and sale. Comparison of Milburn’s sentence with sentences of the few other criminals in the Eastern District of Missouri who have been sentenced under the statute also confirms that his sentence is severe. The other CCE cases in this district also imposed long prison terms, but not life sentences. In United States v. Becton, 751 F.2d 250 (8th Cir.1985), a CCE defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and a $25,000 fine. The defendant in United States v. Kirk, 534 F.2d 1262 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 907, 97 S.Ct. 2971, 53 L.Ed.2d 1091 (1977), a major St. Louis drug dealer, was sentenced to forty years in prison on a CCE charge. Although those sentences are not of the same duration as Milburn’s, we cannot say they are of an entirely different order. All of these terms are harsh and none allow early release on parole. Accordingly, we cannot say that Milburn’s term diverges so radically from this small sample of cases that it violates the Constitution. In comparing his sentence with the sentences of his coconspirators and with the sentences of other drug dealers in the Eastern District of Missouri, Milburn makes an inapposite analogy. Comparison between sentences under different statutes may be valuable in other cases, but not in the CCE context. The legislative history of the CCE statute suggests that it was designed to distinguish between large-scale drug trafficking and small-time users. See, e.g., 116 Cong.Rec. 1183 (January 26, 1970) (remarks of Senator Dole) (distinguishing the “professional criminal” from the “youthful offender”). In addition, the elements of the statute recognize that a defendant in a CCE case has committed a considerably more severe offense than an ordinary drug dealer; in addition to selling drugs, he must occupy a supervisory position and derive substantial income from his enterprise. 21 U.S.C. § 848(c) (1982). None of Milburn’s codefendants and none of the defendants in the other cases on which he relies for comparison meet these elements and, thus, constitute imperfect analogies. The third element in the Solem test is the comparison between Milburn’s sentence and sentences imposed on criminals in other jurisdictions. This comparison gives us a much larger sample of sentences. As a result, the existence of life sentences in other jurisdictions puts Milburn’s sentence in perspective and suggests that, on the basis of nationwide norms, his sentence is not unusual. In Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137, 97 S.Ct. 2207, 53 L.Ed.2d 168 (1977), the Supreme Court considered the sentence a Gary, Indiana, crime boss received under the CCE statute for his involvement in drug sales, extortion, and robberies. The Court let stand his sentence of life without parole and a $100,000 fine. More recently, the Second Circuit rejected the section 2255 petition of a CCE defendant who pled guilty to a twenty-five-count narcotics indictment with sixteen coconspirators. That Court also let stand a sentence of life without parole. Williams v. United States, 731 F.2d 138, 140 (2d Cir.1984). In several other cases, Courts of Appeals have upheld the maximum sentence under the CCE statute. Sperling v. United States, 692 F.2d 223, 224-25 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1131, 103 S.Ct. 3111, 77 L.Ed.2d 1366 (1983) (life sentence and $100,000 fine for heroin and cocaine enterprise); United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 155-58 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 907, 100 S.Ct. 1833, 64 L.Ed.2d 260 (1980) (life sentence and $100,000 fine for heroin conspiracy); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316, 319 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898, 99 S.Ct. 262, 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978) (fifteen-person enterprise smuggled cocaine from Asia and Colombia; leader sentenced to life imprisonment); United States v. Sisea, 503 F.2d 1337, 1339 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1008, 95 S.Ct. 328, 42 L.Ed.2d 283 (1974) (life sentence under CCE statute for heroin and cocaine distribution network not challenged on appeal), and one Court of Appeals explicitly upheld a life sentence under eighth amendment attack. United States v. Valenzuela, 646 F.2d.352, 354 (9th Cir.1980) (defendant sentenced for his role in international heroin conspiracy with distribution centers in Los Angeles and New York; court holds “The punishment provision of section 848, as applied to the facts of this case, does not violate the eighth amendment.”) In reviewing Milburn’s sentence in light of the criteria announced in Solem, therefore, we conclude that his sentence did not violate the eighth amendment. In reaching this conclusion, we heed the instruction in Solem that reviewing courts should “grant substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes, as well as to the discretion that trial courts possess in sentencing convicted criminals.” Solem, 103 S.Ct. at 3009. We note that the legislative history of the statute reflects congressional intent to create “a strong deterrent to those who otherwise might wish to engage in the illicit traffic, while also providing a means for keeping those found guilty of violations out of circulation.” H.R.Rep. No. 91-1444 (Part 1), 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 10, reprinted in 1970 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4566, 4576. Thus, given the plain meaning of the statute and the prior approval of other courts, we face no other alternative but to uphold Milburn’s sentence. Although we feel obliged to uphold this sentence, we note that it is very severe. We suggest that the district court may wish to reconsider the severity of this sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. II. THE ELDER MILBURNS AND THE THROOPS. A. Evidentiary Issues. 1. Admission of Evidence of Cocaine Trafficking. Although all of the defendants in this consolidated appeal were initially tried jointly, three days into the trial the district court declared a mistrial as to Mil-burn, his parents, and the Throops. Subsequently, the couples were tried jointly, and Milburn was tried individually. As part of the evidence of the conspiracy to conceal Milburn’s drug-related income, the government introduced a considerable quantity of testimony and documents relating to the cocaine trafficking scheme which produced the income that these appellants allegedly helped to conceal. The district court declined to admit evidence of cocaine possession and distribution which did not involve Milburn, but admitted evidence of Mil-burn’s role in the drug enterprise on the condition that the government properly tie that evidence to the tax fraud conspiracy. We acknowledge that the potential for prejudice in admitting such evidence is great and we believe that the district court properly excluded evidence of cocaine sales that did not involve Milburn. However, the trial transcript reflects that, when Milburn’s activities were the subject of trial testimony, the district court was careful to caution the jury not to convict the elder Milburns and the Throops for tax evasion based solely on evidence of Alan Milburn’s drug dealing. These cautionary instructions helped to purge whatever prejudice might inhere in this evidence, and, for the reasons enumerated below, we find no error in the admission of this evidence. As we acknowledged in our review of Milburn’s argument, “relevance” is determined by the tendency of the evidence “to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence * * * more probable or less probable * * Fed.R.Evid. 401. We reiterate that the trial court is vested with considerable discretion regarding the admission of evidence, and that its decision is entitled to deference on appeal. United States v. Swarek, 656 F.2d 331, 337 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1034, 102 S.Ct. 573, 70 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981); United States v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782, 797 (8th Cir.1980). We find that the evidence was relevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401 because it demonstrates Milburn’s involvement in drug trafficking of considerable volume ánd value which produced significant income that could be traced to these two couples. This court and others have admitted evidence of drug dealing on similar reasoning, even where it may not have been directly probative of the offense at issue. Thus, in United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 563 (8th Cir.1984), in which the defendants were convicted of conspiring to evade income taxes, we approved the admission of evidence of a massive scheme to import and distribute marijuana. The Fifth Circuit allowed evidence of cocaine dealing to prove a conspiracy to launder money in the Grand Cayman Islands and to impede the IRS in the computation and collection of income taxes. United States v. Enstam, 622 F.2d 857, 860 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 1351, 67 L.Ed.2d 336 (1981). Similarly, in United States v. Browning, 723 F.2d 1544, 1547 (11th Cir. 1984), testimony about the defendant’s ownership of “drug boats” was admitted to prove the defendant’s intention to conspire to evade federal income taxes. Potentially prejudicial evidence of other crimes has also been approved in income tax evasion cases. E.g., Clinkscale v. United States, 729 F.2d 940, 942 (8th Cir.1984) (testimony that prostitutes were turning over income to defendant which he failed to report). We acknowledge that these cases do not involve the admission against defendants of facts involving a third party as is the case here. Nevertheless, we believe that these cases speak to the issue of potential prejudice posed by Milburn’s cocaine dealings, and we find that no prejudice resulted. Close analysis of the evidence in light of the appellants’ argument, however, is essential to disposition of this argument. The appellants base much of their argument on the suggestion that Milburn began selling cocaine in 1979, after the couples had completed their purchases of the assets to which Milburn’s money was traced. Thus, they argue that the cocaine evidence is irrelevant because they could not have been involved in concealing the resulting income. The evidence does not support this contention. According to Ron Humphries, Milburn switched from selling marijuana to cocaine in May, 1979, and these appellants participated in the tax fraud conspiracy from that date until the date of the indictment. For example, the evidence confirms that, until November, 1979, the elder Milburns paid for building materials and labor in the construction of their home with currency or checks that can be linked to Milburn. The record also suggests that Marion Milburn and Paula Throop paid for the remodeling of Milburn’s house in late 1979-80, and that the Throops built a cabin in 1980 at Hidden Valley, partially with monies realized from the sale of an Airstream trailer (which was purchased in 1978 with marijuana money), coupled with currency expenditures traced to Milburn’s drug profits. We also note that the conspiracy did not depend entirely on the concealment and expenditure of funds; the concoction of stories and feints to throw the government off the track also was part of the conspiracy and continued after 1979. Thus, when Ross E. Milburn’s tax adviser asked about his son’s taxes, Ross E. Milburn replied that he was giving his son $100 per week, which he described as funds which permitted them to file income tax returns. In addition, Paula Throop deceived an IRS agent in May, 1981, by denying that Mil-burn had provided any funds for her house or her parents’ house; instead, she told the agent that the Throops’ money had come from cash savings ($20,000-$30,000 saved in their home) and currency loans ($25,000) from her sister and father. At the same time and later that summer, Ross E. Mil-burn conferred with his tax adviser and admitted that he held Alan’s property in his name and the two discussed whether the elder Milburn’s income appeared large enough to have acquired that much property. Thus, we conclude that the concealment continued long after 1979, and, in light of other evidence discussed herein, supports the admission of the cocaine evidence to demonstrate the source of the income which was concealed. Finally, with regard to the cocaine evidence, we decline to accept the appellants’ suggestion that we impose a strict tracing requirement on the currency which resulted from the government-arranged “controlled buys” which led to Mil-burn’s arrest. As we have noted above, we find that this evidence was relevant to show the source of the concealed income. In addition, as we noted in our discussion of the CCE issue above, strict tracing requirements are not typically part of the government’s burden in net worth cases. The Supreme Court has declared that the government did not have to report the exact amounts of unreported income by [appellant]. To require more or more meticulous proof than this record discloses that there were unreported profits from an elaborately concealed illegal business, would be tantamount to holding that skilled concealment is an invincible barrier to proof. United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 503, 517-18, 63 S.Ct. 1233, 1240, 87 L.Ed. 1546 (1943). As we noted in that section, the net worth method carries with it great potential for prejudice. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 125, 75 S.Ct. 127, 130, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954). Therefore, use of that method must be carefully examined in each instance, and our refusal to impose strict tracing requirements is limited to the circumstances of this case. Among the circumstances that we believe preclude any possibility of prejudice from this evidence is the fact that the appellants conspired with Milburn and are bound by his acts and declarations. Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557, 68 S.Ct. 248, 256, 92 L.Ed. 154 (1947); Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-47, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 1183-84, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). The cocaine evidence assumes greater relevance in light of these cases when we consider the appellants’ actions which continued to perpetuate the conspiracy after the cocaine sales. For example, Ross E. Milburn continued writing checks for Alan until March, 1981; Milburn billed telephone calls to the Throops’ cabin on their credit card until April; in May, Paula Throop gave her false story concerning the source of their funds to purchase their home; and in June, Marion Milburn made Alan’s house payment. This degree of continuing involvement by all of the conspirators supports the admission of the cocaine evidence. We are also influenced by the links which, at least in part, suggest that the proceeds from one of the controlled cocaine buys can be traced to the appellants. On February 6, 1981, Alan Milburn sold an ounce of cocaine to government agents for $1,800; later that day, Ross E. and Alan Milburn made a $500 cash downpayment on a new truck for Alan in the name of “Ross Milburn.” On the same day, Ross E. Mil-burn also signed the power-of-attorney form at the time of the transaction and subsequently paid for the truck with a $3,878 check. Therefore, we reject the appellants’ tracing argument and approve the admission of the cocaine evidence. 2. Debbie Martin’s Drug Ledger. As we have noted elsewhere, the government relied heavily in both trials on Debbie Martin’s records of drug finances. One page of Debbie Martin’s ledger entitled “Paula” apparently listed approximately $100,000 disbursed to Paula and Ron Throop for purchasing and improving the Throop and Ross E. Milburn homes. The appellants objected at trial to this key evidence and argue on appeal that the “Paula” page was never authenticated and that it was inadmissible hearsay. We disagree. To be admitted into evidence, documents must be authenticated or identified in such a way as “to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Fed.R.Evid. 901(a). Although Ron Humphries testified that he had seen the ledger at least weekly for a year and a half, he had not seen the “Paula” page until two years after Martin’s death. Despite his and Marta Green’s (an employee at Martin’s store) inability to identify the “Paula” page, in light of controlling precedent, we find other circumstances identify the document. This Court has held that the genuineness of a document may be established by circumstantial evidence. In United States v. Wilson, 532 F.2d 641, 645 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 846, 97 S.Ct. 128, 50 L.Ed.2d 117 (1976), we approved the admission of notebooks relating to drug trafficking where the notebooks were characterized by a kind of “code of which only someone connected with the transactions would have known.” Id. Similarly, in United States v. De Gudino, 722 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir.1983), the Seventh Circuit approved the admission of lists of information relating to the smuggling of illegal aliens. That Court noted that the contents of the notebook indicated the author’s familiarity with defendants’ procedures. Id. at 1355. Circumstantial evidence, such as the fact that the notebooks were found in an apartment used by defendants, also contributed to that Court’s determination of authenticity. Id. The circumstances of this case present us with a stronger set of authenticating facts than either of these cases. Ron Humphries and Mike Richmond identified the ledger and its other pages, which closely resemble the format of the “Paula” page. According to several witnesses, the handwriting of the entries (the name, column headings, numbers, and annotations) identified them as the entries of Martin and Milburn. Moreover, the coincidental correlation between the numbers entered on the “Paula” page and the couples’ 1978 property expenditures is a good circumstantial indicator of authenticity. In addition, Marta Green testified that the entries did not relate to the business, which eliminates another possible explanation for the data. Finally, Debbie Martin’s death in 1979 eliminates any possibility that the entries were made after the conspiracy. Therefore, we find that the evidence was properly authenticated. We also reject any suggestion that this evidence was inadmissible hearsay. Although Debbie Martin was an unnamed conspirator, we believe this evidence is admissible as a statement by a coconspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). To fulfill the requirements of this rule, the government must demonstrate that 1) a conspiracy existed; 2) defendant and declarant were both members of the conspiracy; and 3) the declaration was made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Leroux, 738 F.2d 943, 949 (8th Cir.1984); United States v. Bell, 573 F.2d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir.1978). In establishing the existence of a conspiracy, the government must only demonstrate “a likelihood of illicit association between the declarant and the defendant.” United States v. Sckolle, 553 F.2d 1109, 1117 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940, 98 S.Ct. 432, 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977). Evidence adduced on this point in the case at bar also demonstrates the second requirement, Milburn’s and Martin’s membership in the conspiracy. The evidence amply demonstrates the illegal association between Milburn and Martin; especially probative was their correspondence while Mil-burn was incarcerated in Arkansas on the marijuana charge, and the testimony of Ron Humphries regarding the rest of the drug ledger. Significantly, the defendants can be convicted of conspiring with associates unknown to the grand jury if the indictment asserts their existence and the evidence supports their existence. United States v. Klein, 560 F.2d 1236, 1242 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1073, 98 S.Ct. 1259, 55 L.Ed.2d 777 (1978). Moreover, the defendants need not be charged with conspiracy to invoke the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. United States v. Kiefer, 694 F.2d 1109, 1112 n. 2 (8th Cir.1982). Logically then, Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) applies to both unindicted and unnamed coconspirators. United States v. Zipers