United States v. Loveland - 825 F.3d 555 (9th Cir. 2016)

Rule:

Conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit a crime other than the crime that consists of the sale itself, and the government must show that the buyer and seller had an agreement to further distribute the drug in question. Distribution is a different crime from conspiracy to distribute. For the seller to be conspiring with the buyer to redistribute, there has to be an agreement, not just surmise or knowledge, between the seller and buyer for the buyer to redistribute. The agreement is an element of the crime, and has to be proved. Of course, like any element, the agreement may be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. And the agreement can be explicit or tacit. But the agreement has to be there. A relationship of mere seller and buyer, with the seller having no stake in what the buyer does with the goods, shows the absence of a conspiracy, because it is missing the element of an agreement for redistribution.

Facts:

The government charged twelve defendants with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Nine pleaded guilty and cooperated with the prosecution. Loveland, Jesus Sanchez, and Michael Morris proceeded to trial and were convicted. At Loveland's jury trial, three of the coconspirators testified to repeated sales to Loveland of two ounces at a time, each time for $2,400. And each time, Loveland paid cash on delivery. There was testimony that the quantities he bought were too much for a person to consume himself without getting sick, so the jury could reasonably infer that Loveland bought the methamphetamine partly or entirely for resale. Two of the coconspirators had different arrangements with Sanchez. Ben Vertner paid more,—$1,300 per ounce instead of $1,200—and had an explicit agreement with Sanchez to resell the drugs he bought. Mario Martinez sometimes was "fronted" the methamphetamine, which means he did not have to pay cash on delivery, and would instead pay for his inventory after he resold it. For Loveland, though, it was cash on the barrelhead every time—no discounts, no credit, and no agreement about what he would do with the drugs. Loveland would call when he wanted a delivery, and the conspirators would deliver the usual two one-ounce bags to his house and collect the usual $2,400. The testimony put the number of deliveries to Loveland somewhere between twelve and twenty. There was no testimony supporting or implying any involvement by anyone in the Sanchez group with whatever reselling Loveland might have been doing. Loveland moved unsuccessfully for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case, and at the close of evidence, based on insufficient evidence of conspiracy. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court imposed a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment because Loveland had two prior convictions for felony drug offenses.

Issue:

Was the evidence sufficient to sustain Loveland’s conviction for conspiracy with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C.S. § 846?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Loveland’s conviction for conspiracy with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C.S. § 846 because he did not make the requisite agreement. Although the quantities and repeated sales to Loveland supported an inference that the group knew they were selling drugs to a reseller, that was not sufficient to prove that the group agreed with defendant that he was to redistribute drugs. Loveland could have flushed the drugs down the toilet for all they cared, since they already had the money.