
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Octavio MENDOZA-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30157.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 12, 2010.
    Filed Nov. 3, 2010.
    
      John Deits, Leslie Jauanna Westphal, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Todd Hardy Grover, Bend, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Octavio Mendoza-Morales appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin and possession. The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, which we repeat here only to the extent necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

“Typically, the inference of an overall agreement [between conspirators] is drawn from proof of a single objective or from proof that the key participants and the method of operation remained constant throughout the conspiracy.” United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1226 (9th Cir.2004). Here, the evidence indicates that key participants, including Appellant, repeatedly used similarly designed, locked secret compartments in different cars to facilitate drug sales. This evidence supports an inference of an overall agreement.

“The inference that a defendant had reason to believe that his benefits were dependent on the success of the entire venture may be drawn from proof that the coconspirators knew of each other’s participation.... ” Id. Here, Appellant knew that both he and a coconspirator had access to drugs inside garage # 7. Appellant also repeatedly agreed to give drugs to other coconspirators. The evidence demonstrates that Appellant knew of co-conspirators’ involvement. As a member of the conspiracy, Appellant is responsible for the acts of his co-conspirators. Alvarez-Valenzuela, 231 F.3d at 1202-3.

Accordingly, Appellant’s conviction is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . As this court has previously noted, our conclusion is the same whether we review de novo or for plain error. See United States v. Alvarez-Valenzuela, 231 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir.2000).
     