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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| double-jeopardy/separate-deals-linked-by-informant | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/921/0951-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural | |
| evidentiary-error/corroborating-shipment-coordination | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/933/0501-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — background/procedural | |
| express/coordination | Planning about sourcing, distribution, funding or shared proceeds can demonstrate a common objective. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| retrial/sufficient-record-including-erroneously-admitted-testimony | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/934/1251-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural | |
| supply-network/cohabiting-supplier-and-distributor | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/932/1091-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied | |
| tacit/circumstantial | Mutual understanding may be inferred from coordinated conduct, repeated distribution-level purchases and context; guilt still requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/513/0010-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — rule-announced/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/921/0951-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 | 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. |
| /f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | 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. |
| /f3d/932/1091-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 | 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. |
| /f3d/933/0501-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | 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. |
| /f3d/934/1251-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 | 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. |
| /us/513/0010-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 | 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 variant | 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.
/us/513/0010-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
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.
/f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
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.