United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019-04-22
21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: Double-jeopardy appeal addressing whether separate drug agreements formed one conspiracy; result: claimant-won; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
Agreement identity is relational across two conspiracies; the schema reuses agreement with procedural scope and cannot express a two-case identity edge. The no-informant-only-conspiracy rule is not a finding that either charged conspiracy lacked a genuine coconspirator.
Claimant outcome refers to the prosecuting government, not the defendant-appellant; remanded and mixed retain unresolved or split dispositions.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 8
| Case | Identified offense in Subchapter I | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | Knowledge of the unlawful agreement and objective | Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement | Withdrawal before the applicable limitations period | Intent to commit the identified object offense |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Leal — 921 F.3d 951 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | · not addressed | ✗ not · lawNot counted: applied/procedural | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/procedural | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–8 of 8
| Case | Conduct beyond preparation strongly corroborating intent | Object-offense penalty incorporation |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Leal — 921 F.3d 951 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Leal — 921 F.3d 951 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law; party: defendant Leal; theory: identity of successive conspiracies; subject: party=defendant Leal; theory=identity of successive conspiracies The court rejects the proposed inference that two prosecuted deals were the same conspiracy for double-jeopardy purposes. It does not find either prosecution lacks all agreement or that Leal acted only with an informant. | double-jeopardy/separate-deals-linked-by-informant | Here, there is no evidence that (1) Ms. Tapia or Mr. Carmona were "major buyers," (2) they obtained their drugs from the same supplier, or (3) Mr. Leal was a supplier to either of them.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/0951-01; Unicode character offsets [19598:19783] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9548ccac58b96b23f4639dd698eb70e092ffa90878ae6553b9b59f22ede5657e.This hardly supports an inference that they pursued a shared common objective or that the Tapia deal "[was] necessary or advantageous to the success" of the conspirators in the Carmona deal.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/0951-01; Unicode character offsets [19856:20046] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9548ccac58b96b23f4639dd698eb70e092ffa90878ae6553b9b59f22ede5657e. |
| U.S. v. Leal — 921 F.3d 951 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — not reached (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / proceduralProcedural conspiracy-identity ruling; not a fresh merits sufficiency instance. | Unspecified route | Although two or more people must agree to form a conspiracy, an informant cannot count toward that requirement: "[T]here can be no indictable conspiracy involving only the defendant and government agents or informers."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/0951-01; Unicode character offsets [9860:10078] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9548ccac58b96b23f4639dd698eb70e092ffa90878ae6553b9b59f22ede5657e. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Although two or more people must agree to form a conspiracy, an informant cannot count toward that requirement: "[T]here can be no indictable conspiracy involving only the defendant and government agents or informers."
U.S. v. Leal — 921 F.3d 951 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))
Although two or more people must agree to form a conspiracy, an informant cannot count toward that requirement: "[T]here can be no indictable conspiracy involving only the defendant and government agents or informers."Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/0951-01; Unicode character offsets [9860:10078] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9548ccac58b96b23f4639dd698eb70e092ffa90878ae6553b9b59f22ede5657e.Joining an actual common unlawful undertaking requires more than dealing solely with an informant or knowing other offenders Leal applies the Tenth Circuit interdependence formulation: participants must advance a shared criminal objective. Separate agreements linked only through an informant were not one conspiracy. Other circuits express the common-objective rule through agreement/joinder; this constraint does not nationalize the Tenth Circuit's four-item instructions.