Source: cases/21usc846/f3d-922-1071-us-v-montijo-dominguez.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_922/1071_01/index.html
Rather, the co-conspirators must share a common objective, or "common purpose or design."
Contrary to Mr. Mendoza's and Mr. Montijo's assertions, there is enough evidence to support a common goal of distributing the six kilograms of cocaine.
Such evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Mr. Mendoza and Mr. Montijo conspired to possess with an intent to distribute large quantities of cocaine.
The jury thus heard (and credited) evidence that Mr. Montijo was both aware of the nature of the transaction and was intimately involved.
# author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) casedsl 1.2 case /f3d/922/1071-01 name U.S. v. Montijo-Dominguez cite 922 F.3d 1071 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit date 2019-04-25 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_922/1071_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl sha1=205b893bb6e55b2f4e4d4e2974517cf6e223d3f7 chars=22427 opinion op : majority by Kelly @0..22427 controlling party montijo : Giovanni Montijo-Dominguez, the driver who claimed to believe the cash was an extortion payment law 21usc846 role applied posture Criminal appeal from convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine result claimant-won element agreement : satisfied [proved] scope merits route inferred-from-dealings pattern common-objective/reverse-sting-purchase-of-six-kilograms-for-delivery-to-a-third-person rule @13117..13206 | Rather, the co-conspirators must share a common objective, or "common purpose or design." fact @14895..15077 [supports] | In addition, the jury heard testimony that Mr. Mendoza spoke to the agents about a "next time," a statement consistent with an intended narcotics arrangement, not extortion payments. fact @3400..3499 [supports] | Both Mr. Mendoza and Mr. Montijo asked the agents if they could complete the transaction elsewhere. fact @15634..15875 [supports] | Similarly, although Mr. Mendoza explained that he and Mr. Montijo drove around the parking lot because of a misunderstanding as to the meeting spot, 3 R. 1424, the agents described their driving as reflecting a "countersurveillance" pattern. held @14298..14449 | Contrary to Mr. Mendoza's and Mr. Montijo's assertions, there is enough evidence to support a common goal of distributing the six kilograms of cocaine. held @16034..16195 | Such evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Mr. Mendoza and Mr. Montijo conspired to possess with an intent to distribute large quantities of cocaine. ? guard: G3-cited-case "3 R. 1424" is a citation to this case's trial record, not to a reporter; the sentence describes these defendants' own driving gloss Distribution-quantity cocaine, talk of a "next time", countersurveillance driving and both men's part in the negotiation supported a finding that the co-defendants shared a common objective to possess with intent to distribute; an intended hand-over to Lazaro counts as distribution, with or without a profit motive. element knowledge : satisfied [proved] scope merits party montijo route _whole pattern last-minute-driver/claimed-belief-in-extortion-payment-rejected-by-jury fact @15088..15347 [supports] | There was also testimony that Mr. Montijo engaged in the conversation with the government agents, such that they believed him to be an experienced drug trafficker, id. at 969-70, 1133, and that he attempted to flee at the first sight of identifiable officers. fact @3521..3630 [supports] | The agents declined, and Mr. Montijo handed cash, which was wrapped in clear plastic and in bundles, to them. fact @2606..2770 [cuts-against] | He told Mr. Montijo about needing to give drug cartel members his life savings, but he claimed not to have told Mr. Montijo that the transaction involved narcotics. held @15896..16033 | The jury thus heard (and credited) evidence that Mr. Montijo was both aware of the nature of the transaction and was intimately involved. gloss Montijo's defense was ignorance that the deal involved narcotics. The court held the jury was entitled to credit the agents' account over his. misfit Defendants argued that absence of a shared profit motive precluded a common objective; the court held profit-motive language in precedent merely distinguishes end-user buyers under the buyer-seller rule. misfit The challenge to the supplemental jury instruction (whether government agents can be the second conspirator) was disposed of as invited error and is not recorded as a block.