United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019-04-25
21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: Criminal appeal from convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine; result: claimant-won; claim:
Uncertainty
Element agreement: 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
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.
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.
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. Montijo-Dominguez — 922 F.3d 1071 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–8 of 8
| Case | Conduct beyond preparation strongly corroborating intent | Object-offense penalty incorporation |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Montijo-Dominguez — 922 F.3d 1071 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Montijo-Dominguez — 922 F.3d 1071 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved 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. | common-objective/reverse-sting-purchase-of-six-kilograms-for-delivery-to-a-third-person | Rather, the co-conspirators must share a common objective, or "common purpose or design."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/1071-01; Unicode character offsets [13117:13206] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d7bde1c5f0464d89c7b0eca9908fab9b197d14220920b961adeb5862bc0dac6.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/1071-01; Unicode character offsets [14895:15077] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d7bde1c5f0464d89c7b0eca9908fab9b197d14220920b961adeb5862bc0dac6.Both Mr. Mendoza and Mr. Montijo asked the agents if they could complete the transaction elsewhere.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/1071-01; Unicode character offsets [3400:3499] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d7bde1c5f0464d89c7b0eca9908fab9b197d14220920b961adeb5862bc0dac6.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/1071-01; Unicode character offsets [15634:15875] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d7bde1c5f0464d89c7b0eca9908fab9b197d14220920b961adeb5862bc0dac6.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/1071-01; Unicode character offsets [14298:14449] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d7bde1c5f0464d89c7b0eca9908fab9b197d14220920b961adeb5862bc0dac6.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/1071-01; Unicode character offsets [16034:16195] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d7bde1c5f0464d89c7b0eca9908fab9b197d14220920b961adeb5862bc0dac6. |
| U.S. v. Montijo-Dominguez — 922 F.3d 1071 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Knowledge of the unlawful agreement and objective | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: Giovanni Montijo-Dominguez, the driver who claimed to believe the cash was an extortion payment; subject: party=Giovanni Montijo-Dominguez, the driver who claimed to believe the cash was an extortion payment Montijo's defense was ignorance that the deal involved narcotics. The court held the jury was entitled to credit the agents' account over his. | last-minute-driver/claimed-belief-in-extortion-payment-rejected-by-jury | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/1071-01; Unicode character offsets [15088:15347] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d7bde1c5f0464d89c7b0eca9908fab9b197d14220920b961adeb5862bc0dac6.The agents declined, and Mr. Montijo handed cash, which was wrapped in clear plastic and in bundles, to them.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/1071-01; Unicode character offsets [3521:3630] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d7bde1c5f0464d89c7b0eca9908fab9b197d14220920b961adeb5862bc0dac6.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/1071-01; Unicode character offsets [2606:2770] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d7bde1c5f0464d89c7b0eca9908fab9b197d14220920b961adeb5862bc0dac6.The jury thus heard (and credited) evidence that Mr. Montijo was both aware of the nature of the transaction and was intimately involved.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/1071-01; Unicode character offsets [15896:16033] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d7bde1c5f0464d89c7b0eca9908fab9b197d14220920b961adeb5862bc0dac6. |