United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019-06-11
21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: Jury conviction sufficiency appeal on methamphetamine conspiracy; result: claimant-won; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The same coordinated dealings support agreement, knowledge and intentional joinder. The sample does not infer that every repeat purchase automatically proves conspiracy.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Potter — 927 F.3d 446 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–8 of 8
| Case | Conduct beyond preparation strongly corroborating intent | Object-offense penalty incorporation |
|---|---|---|
| United States v. Potter — 927 F.3d 446 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Potter — 927 F.3d 446 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: defendant Potter; subject: party=defendant Potter The court affirms sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence. Repeated distribution-scale purchases plus coordination and financing support the inferred agreement/knowing joinder; a buyer-seller transaction alone is not the stated rule. | tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases | Potter purchased methamphetamine from Hogan on at least six occasions in distribution-level amounts (between 4 and 20 ounces (113 to 566 grams)).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20119:20264] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2.Ample evidence showed an agreement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [19672:19707] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2. |
| United States v. Potter — 927 F.3d 446 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: defendant Potter; subject: party=defendant Potter The court affirms sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence. Repeated distribution-scale purchases plus coordination and financing support the inferred agreement/knowing joinder; a buyer-seller transaction alone is not the stated rule. | tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases | Likewise, Potter continued his distribution efforts from jail by agreeing to front Hilliard funds to buy drugs from Hogan in exchange for a cut.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20523:20667] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2.The evidence also could lead a rational jury to find § 846 's other elements-that Potter knowingly and voluntarily participated in (that is, joined) the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20668:20832] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2. |
| United States v. Potter — 927 F.3d 446 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Knowledge of the unlawful agreement and objective | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: defendant Potter; subject: party=defendant Potter The court affirms sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence. Repeated distribution-scale purchases plus coordination and financing support the inferred agreement/knowing joinder; a buyer-seller transaction alone is not the stated rule. | tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases | Likewise, Potter continued his distribution efforts from jail by agreeing to front Hilliard funds to buy drugs from Hogan in exchange for a cut.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20523:20667] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2.The evidence also could lead a rational jury to find § 846 's other elements-that Potter knowingly and voluntarily participated in (that is, joined) the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20668:20832] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
agreement to violate the drug laws need not be express or formal. A tacit or mutual understanding among the parties is sufficient.
United States v. Potter — 927 F.3d 446 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)
agreement to violate the drug laws need not be express or formal. A tacit or mutual understanding among the parties is sufficient.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [19732:19862] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2.A buyer-seller transaction alone does not establish agreement to a further distribution conspiracy. Repetition/quantity and coordinated dealings can support the inference; no mechanical transaction-count rule is asserted.
interpretation
So whether phrased as two elements or three, a conviction under § 846 requires an agreement to violate the drug laws, the defendant's knowledge of the agreement, and the defendant's decision to voluntarily join (or "participate in") it.
United States v. Potter — 927 F.3d 446 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)
So whether phrased as two elements or three, a conviction under § 846 requires an agreement to violate the drug laws, the defendant's knowledge of the agreement, and the defendant's decision to voluntarily join (or "participate in") it.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [19358:19594] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2.Potter reconciles two- and three-part formulations. Participation distinguishes intentional joinder from mere presence; it cannot resurrect the overt-act requirement rejected by Shabani. Separate knowledge and volition are required, without an additional universal act requirement.