AND · 21usc846:agreement
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.
Exact element source
conspiresSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec846; Unicode character offsets [56:65] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e517c5d16d23f29a12a2ee674170178c593255445eb2bf7e8f112f4236ea1e1.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; provisional (1 case) | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:United States v. Shabani — 513 U.S. 10 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
| _comparator accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is used as a yardstick for another statute or question, not applied to this case's own conduct. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:United States v. Norman — 935 F.3d 232 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · comparator/merits · not counted |
| _procedural accepted; 3 observed cases | The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 3 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (3). Excluded context examples: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)) · applied/procedural · not counted United States v. Buchanan — 933 F.3d 501 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · background/procedural · not counted United States v. Hawkins — 934 F.3d 1251 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/procedural · not counted |
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | United States v. Delgado — 367 F. Supp. 3d 286 (2019) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| express-agreement provisional; 0 observed cases | Planning about sourcing, distribution, funding or shared proceeds can demonstrate a common objective. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | Never used: no annotation uses in this snapshot |
| inferred-from-dealings provisional; 6 observed cases | Whether an agreement to distribute is inferred from the parties' course of dealing rather than an express pact. | 6 Satisfied 5; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 6 | United States v. Guzman-Ortiz — 365 F. Supp. 3d 215 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — not · no-evidence (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Lyle — 919 F.3d 716 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Moreno — 922 F.3d 787 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Guzman-Ortiz — 365 F. Supp. 3d 215 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — not · no-evidence (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The charged conspiracy had only two members (defendant and Soto-Peguero). Helping to hide a kilogram of heroin when agents pounded on the door was the only evidence of any agreement, and the court held a tacit agreement to distribute could not reasonably be inferred from it. | two-person-conspiracy/visitor-helps-hide-heroin-during-raid | Criminal conspiracies are naturally secretive and the government need not prove an express agreement between co-conspirators.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_365.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/365/0215-01; Unicode character offsets [9062:9187] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8371f1741f10e07c9143d36e906600deedd9f497616af5f0247ae3a2eebfb98c.One kilogram of heroin, wrapped entirely in black electrical tape, was partially stuffed in an air vent below the window in the upstairs room where defendant and Soto-Peguero had been observed during the attempted front door entry.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_365.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/365/0215-01; Unicode character offsets [4646:4877] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8371f1741f10e07c9143d36e906600deedd9f497616af5f0247ae3a2eebfb98c.None of the intercepted communications referred to or were exchanged with defendant, nor was there any evidence of his knowledge thereof.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_365.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/365/0215-01; Unicode character offsets [3305:3442] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8371f1741f10e07c9143d36e906600deedd9f497616af5f0247ae3a2eebfb98c.Although forensics later identified latent fingerprints on the bricks matching Soto-Peguero's, no such evidence of defendant's participation was adduced.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_365.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/365/0215-01; Unicode character offsets [3673:3826] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8371f1741f10e07c9143d36e906600deedd9f497616af5f0247ae3a2eebfb98c.There was no evidence that the drug distribution paraphernalia had been used on the day in question, or that the heroin seized from Cabral had been prepared and packaged that day, or that defendant was aware of or had participated in such activities.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_365.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/365/0215-01; Unicode character offsets [6367:6617] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8371f1741f10e07c9143d36e906600deedd9f497616af5f0247ae3a2eebfb98c.That evidence provides an insufficient basis for finding or inferring the existence of an agreement between defendant and Soto-Peguero to possess and distribute heroin, and to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally entered into such a compact with the requisite knowledge and purpose.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_365.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/365/0215-01; Unicode character offsets [15875:16185] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8371f1741f10e07c9143d36e906600deedd9f497616af5f0247ae3a2eebfb98c.Because the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict on Count 6, the verdict on that Count is set aside, and it is ordered that judgment of acquittal be entered on that Count.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_365.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/365/0215-01; Unicode character offsets [18191:18381] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8371f1741f10e07c9143d36e906600deedd9f497616af5f0247ae3a2eebfb98c. |
| United States v. Delgado — 367 F. Supp. 3d 286 (2019) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · 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 Testimony of the ring's leader, his son and the victims that drugs were routinely handed down through drivers to the women established an agreement among the participants to distribute. The challenge was cursory and the court addressed no narrower doctrinal question. | prostitution-ring/drugs-supplied-to-victims-as-payment | Each of these conspiracies has a unique objective, but otherwise consists of the same basic elements: (1) that two or more persons agreed to commit an offense; (2) that the defendant was a party to or member of that agreement; and (3) that the defendant joined the agreement or conspiracy knowing of its unlawful objective and intending to join together with at least one other alleged conspirator to achieve that objective.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/367/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [17983:18407] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6da2fad840dd9eda195445935993c1f3b3e2f24776499785931141362cb902b7.Albert-the admitted leader of the prostitution operation-testified extensively about how distribution of drugs was integral to the organization.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/367/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [26722:26866] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6da2fad840dd9eda195445935993c1f3b3e2f24776499785931141362cb902b7.He explained that he often gave drugs directly to his female victims or to drivers who would in turn give them to the girls.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/367/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [26900:27024] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6da2fad840dd9eda195445935993c1f3b3e2f24776499785931141362cb902b7.Keanu, Albert's son, confirmed that the operation involved drugs, including oxycodone, heroin, cocaine, "Molly," and marijuana, which were often used as a form of payment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/367/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [27265:27436] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6da2fad840dd9eda195445935993c1f3b3e2f24776499785931141362cb902b7.It shows existence of an agreement between at least four conspirators to distribute various drugs to female victims, often as a form of payment for prostitution.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/367/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [28229:28390] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6da2fad840dd9eda195445935993c1f3b3e2f24776499785931141362cb902b7. |
| United States v. Lyle — 919 F.3d 716 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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; party: Michael Van Praagh; count: Count 1 (21 U.S.C. § 846); subject: party=Michael Van Praagh; count=Count 1 (21 U.S.C. § 846) Van Praagh's sufficiency challenge was that he was only Lyle's seller. The court found a conspiracy beyond buyer-seller from his sales to many other customers and from repeated pound-level sales to Lyle, himself a dealer. | buyer-seller-exception/supplier-with-many-customers-repeatedly-sells-pound-quantities-to-a-fellow-dealer | The crux of a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to join together to accomplish something illegal.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0716-01; Unicode character offsets [53377:53495] (end exclusive); SHA-256 acf835c61e902d576848d051925e7794aa32249c47a3d3a79e5299e004349551.Under this exception, "the existence of a buyer-seller relationship does not itself establish a conspiracy; however, where there is additional evidence showing an agreement to join together to accomplish an objective beyond the sale transaction, the evidence may support a finding that the parties intentionally participated in a conspiracy."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0716-01; Unicode character offsets [53905:54247] (end exclusive); SHA-256 acf835c61e902d576848d051925e7794aa32249c47a3d3a79e5299e004349551.Van Praagh regularly sold methamphetamine to Lyle, who was also a methamphetamine dealer in the New York area.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0716-01; Unicode character offsets [1978:2088] (end exclusive); SHA-256 acf835c61e902d576848d051925e7794aa32249c47a3d3a79e5299e004349551.With assistance from Tarantino, he regularly sold methamphetamine out of his apartment in Queens as well as out of hotels, and he made deliveries to "[p]robably 50" customers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0716-01; Unicode character offsets [55614:55789] (end exclusive); SHA-256 acf835c61e902d576848d051925e7794aa32249c47a3d3a79e5299e004349551.Tarantino testified that Lyle repeatedly purchased pound-level quantities of methamphetamine at $19,000 to $25,000 per pound.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0716-01; Unicode character offsets [55879:56004] (end exclusive); SHA-256 acf835c61e902d576848d051925e7794aa32249c47a3d3a79e5299e004349551.The district court did not plainly err in failing to give a buyer-seller instruction because the government presented ample evidence of a narcotics conspiracy beyond a buyer-seller relationship between Van Praagh and Lyle.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0716-01; Unicode character offsets [55232:55454] (end exclusive); SHA-256 acf835c61e902d576848d051925e7794aa32249c47a3d3a79e5299e004349551.Because we conclude that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support all convictions, the challenged searches and seizures did not violate the Fourth Amendment, the admission of Lyle's statements did not violate the Fifth Amendment, and Van Praagh's sentence was reasonable, we affirm the judgments of the district court.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0716-01; Unicode character offsets [760:1085] (end exclusive); SHA-256 acf835c61e902d576848d051925e7794aa32249c47a3d3a79e5299e004349551. |
| 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. |
| United States v. Moreno — 922 F.3d 787 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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; party: Maria Moreno; count: Count 1 (21 U.S.C. § 846); subject: party=Maria Moreno; count=Count 1 (21 U.S.C. § 846) Seventh Circuit affirms § 846 conspiracy conviction, holding that wholesale purchases over a year, fronting of heroin on credit, sharing trap vehicles, and warning of law enforcement threats established an agreement beyond a mere buyer-seller relationship, although the cooperating witness called her "just a customer". | tacit/wholesale-purchases-on-credit-and-shared-trap-vehicles | Rather, "the government must offer evidence establishing an agreement to distribute drugs that is distinct from evidence of the agreement to complete the underlying drug deals."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0787-01; Unicode character offsets [12998:13175] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c8f8b75205e0fdf5e7ab32d10f16627b6da873b82b2e192d7d9281e5d8256b2f.Specifically, Torres testified that from mid-2012 until Moreno's arrest in July 2013, he or an associate provided two to four kilograms of heroin to Moreno once or twice a month.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0787-01; Unicode character offsets [16545:16723] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c8f8b75205e0fdf5e7ab32d10f16627b6da873b82b2e192d7d9281e5d8256b2f.Additionally, there is evidence of at least two instances when Moreno purchased the heroin on credit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0787-01; Unicode character offsets [16724:16825] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c8f8b75205e0fdf5e7ab32d10f16627b6da873b82b2e192d7d9281e5d8256b2f.She urged Torres to "drop those phones" and told him that police "follow[ed]" her from Chicago.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0787-01; Unicode character offsets [17543:17638] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c8f8b75205e0fdf5e7ab32d10f16627b6da873b82b2e192d7d9281e5d8256b2f.Torres testified he paid for the repair and did not seek repayment from Moreno because Guzman said he would cover the costs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0787-01; Unicode character offsets [19286:19410] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c8f8b75205e0fdf5e7ab32d10f16627b6da873b82b2e192d7d9281e5d8256b2f.And unlike other DTO members, Moreno did not use the Guzman DTO stash house, did not have an agreement with the Guzman DTO to look for customers, and did not receive a commission.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0787-01; Unicode character offsets [21744:21923] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c8f8b75205e0fdf5e7ab32d10f16627b6da873b82b2e192d7d9281e5d8256b2f.In sum, the government offered sufficient evidence to support the jury's inference that Moreno knowingly agreed to participate in a drug-trafficking conspiracy, not a mere buyer-seller relationship.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0787-01; Unicode character offsets [22904:23102] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c8f8b75205e0fdf5e7ab32d10f16627b6da873b82b2e192d7d9281e5d8256b2f. |
| 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. |
| 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. Mazzulla — 932 F.3d 1091 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md); 21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; count: Count I conspiracy; subject: count=Count I conspiracy The court rejects the attack on witness credibility as for the jury and upholds the conspiracy verdict. The testimony is credited under verdict-favorable review, not an independent undisputed fact. | supply-network/cohabiting-supplier-and-distributor | At the police station Utley waived his Miranda rights and consented to an interview, during which he stated that Burke regularly kept between a half-pound and two pounds of methamphetamine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/1091-01; Unicode character offsets [3059:3248] (end exclusive); SHA-256 134fb3d6293d60034b50e328b2f8bc6338c96fa98b9411a4bc86a8b0b50fded8.Utley identified Mazzulla as Burke's source.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/1091-01; Unicode character offsets [3249:3293] (end exclusive); SHA-256 134fb3d6293d60034b50e328b2f8bc6338c96fa98b9411a4bc86a8b0b50fded8.Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government, we are satisfied that the evidence supports the verdict on every count.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/1091-01; Unicode character offsets [28848:28985] (end exclusive); SHA-256 134fb3d6293d60034b50e328b2f8bc6338c96fa98b9411a4bc86a8b0b50fded8. |
| United States v. Buchanan — 933 F.3d 501 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not reached (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / proceduralThe court assesses cumulative evidence and prejudice from omitted expert instructions under plain-error review. This is not coded as a fresh merits sufficiency finding. | evidentiary-error/corroborating-shipment-coordination | For example, Hobbs testified that during the time he was in the car with Buchanan driving around and searching for the missing package, Buchanan repeatedly spoke with someone on the phone about the package.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/0501-01; Unicode character offsets [23223:23429] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d8ef780cfb5ac59cb14536a09f5f676824cdb333dad7e487bcb5e059ae417e56.Hobbs also testified that he sent Buchanan lists of addresses to which Buchanan then had packages delivered.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/0501-01; Unicode character offsets [23545:23653] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d8ef780cfb5ac59cb14536a09f5f676824cdb333dad7e487bcb5e059ae417e56.Furthermore, even to the extent that Adams's and Cajuste's testimony supported the conspiracy conviction as opposed to only the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, the government presented sufficient additional evidence supporting the conspiracy conviction that the opinion testimony was cumulative and unlikely to have influenced the verdict.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/0501-01; Unicode character offsets [20325:20685] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d8ef780cfb5ac59cb14536a09f5f676824cdb333dad7e487bcb5e059ae417e56. |
| United States v. Hawkins — 934 F.3d 1251 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law; party: Hawkins; count: Count One conspiracy; subject: party=Hawkins; count=Count One conspiracy The court rejects a sufficiency challenge using all admitted evidence but vacates the conviction for improper case-agent testimony. Procedural scope excludes this retrial-permitting conclusion from final merits-instance counts. | retrial/sufficient-record-including-erroneously-admitted-testimony | Through the intercepted conversations, the agents identified Carlos Ware as Jackson's cocaine supplier, McCree and Hawkins as distributors for Ware, and others who played various roles in the operation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1251-01; Unicode character offsets [1483:1685] (end exclusive); SHA-256 db2e2c3e97883ca3f93a047deb87d2874ce5056a50b178817a970b81e1b0ffbd.We find no merit to Hawkins's assertions that the evidence admitted at trial was not sufficient to support his convictions because a reasonable trier of fact certainly could have found him guilty given the evidence presented.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1251-01; Unicode character offsets [45809:46034] (end exclusive); SHA-256 db2e2c3e97883ca3f93a047deb87d2874ce5056a50b178817a970b81e1b0ffbd.But because Agent Russell's testimony-which constituted the majority of the evidence against Hawkins as to all three counts-was admitted in error, we remand for a new trial.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1251-01; Unicode character offsets [46035:46208] (end exclusive); SHA-256 db2e2c3e97883ca3f93a047deb87d2874ce5056a50b178817a970b81e1b0ffbd. |
| United States v. Norman — 935 F.3d 232 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not reached (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits party: Thomas Edward Norman; count: sentencing enhancement predicate (prior § 846 conspiracy); subject: party=Thomas Edward Norman; count=sentencing enhancement predicate (prior § 846 conspiracy) Fourth Circuit uses § 846 only as a yardstick: because § 846 conspiracy requires no overt act it is broader than generic conspiracy under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, so the enhancement was error, but not plain error; the sentence is affirmed. Nothing about Norman's prior agreement is decided. | categorical-approach/no-overt-act-so-broader-than-generic-conspiracy | And it is undisputed that "conspiracy" under § 846 does not require an overt act.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0232-01; Unicode character offsets [10488:10569] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3343cbfb9dc47490981c998a6eb8d91051f7a9349e09901b1cbacbec9570d8b0.We therefore hold that a "conspiracy" conviction under § 846 is a categorical mismatch to the generic crime of conspiracy enumerated in § 4B1.2(b).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0232-01; Unicode character offsets [14869:15016] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3343cbfb9dc47490981c998a6eb8d91051f7a9349e09901b1cbacbec9570d8b0. |
| United States v. Shabani — 513 U.S. 10 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — not reached (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / meritsThe Court announces the no-overt-act rule; it does not decide a defendant-specific sufficiency finding here. | Unspecified route | In order to establish a violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846, the Government need not prove the commission of any overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_513.jsonl#/us/513/0010-01; Unicode character offsets [8339:8491] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2fe5b9464462aba9e77428cdf532f373f7dcacf88d555503969ee67f6700475b. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
In order to establish a violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846, the Government need not prove the commission of any overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
United States v. Shabani — 513 U.S. 10 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)
In order to establish a violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846, the Government need not prove the commission of any overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_513.jsonl#/us/513/0010-01; Unicode character offsets [8339:8491] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2fe5b9464462aba9e77428cdf532f373f7dcacf88d555503969ee67f6700475b.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
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.
not-required
Overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (Shabani); a formal or express agreement (Potter).
No source quotation recorded.