What constitutes a substantial step towards possession with intent to distribute of Class A drugs?

In Yossunthorn, we held that placing an order to purchase heroin and countersurveillance of the prearranged meeting location was not conduct sufficient to establish a substantial step towards possession. We reasoned that countersurveillance, or the securing of a location for some future drug purchase, only constituted an "appreciable fragment of the crime of drug possession with intent to distribute." Id. at 1272 (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, the act of making an appointment with a known drug dealer was not a substantial step because the "[defendant] had not `committed all the steps necessary on his part to the completion of the substantive offense.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Smith, 962 F.2d 923, 930-31 (9th

[467 F.3d 1223]

Cir.2002)). "While'[t]he government does not have to wait until the transaction is complete[,] ... it needs more evidence of a substantial step.'" Id. at 1273 (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Cea, 914 F.2d 881, 888 (7th Cir.1990)).