United States v. Colon
549 F.3d 565, 2008 WL 5120218, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24663 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The regular purchase of large quantities of controlled substances for resale, without more, constitutes a buyer-seller relationship and is insufficient to prove the buyer has joined the seller's criminal conspiracy. Proof of a conspiracy requires evidence of an agreement to a shared criminal objective beyond the crime of the sale itself.
Facts:
- Saucedo and Rodriguez operated a cocaine distribution conspiracy.
- The government intercepted a phone call where Saucedo told Rodriguez that "Dude" would arrive at a specific house in 15 minutes to pick up a drug order.
- Approximately 15 minutes later, officers observed the defendant, Colon, arrive at the house, enter, and leave shortly thereafter.
- Over a period of approximately six weeks, Colon engaged in six or seven transactions with Saucedo, regularly purchasing distribution quantities of cocaine (4.5 or 9 ounces).
- All transactions between Colon and Saucedo were for cash; there were no sales on credit.
- Colon knew Saucedo worked with Rodriguez but never met, spoke to, or had any dealings with Rodriguez.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Colon, was charged in federal district court with possession of cocaine with intent to sell, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting a conspiracy.
- A jury convicted Colon on all counts.
- The district court (trial court) sentenced Colon to 135 months in prison.
- Colon appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's regular, standardized purchase of distribution-level quantities of narcotics from a seller's conspiracy transform the defendant from a mere buyer into a member of that conspiracy?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge.
No. A series of standardized drug purchases, even in large quantities, does not elevate a buyer-seller relationship to a conspiracy. The government's evidence describes a routine buyer-seller relationship, not membership in a conspiracy. The court reasoned that the crime of conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a crime other than the sale itself; simply engaging in repeated transactions is not sufficient. Factors that might indicate a conspiracy, such as sales on credit, a prolonged cooperative relationship, or the buyer's assistance in the seller's distribution activities (e.g., finding new customers or providing advice), were absent in this case. The court emphasized that every seller has a financial stake in their buyer's resale success, but this commercial interest alone does not create a 'joint criminal objective' necessary for a conspiracy conviction. Similarly, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove aiding and abetting, as there was no indication Colon's purchases made a meaningful difference to the success of the conspiracy, which could have easily found other customers.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the 'buyer-seller' distinction in conspiracy law, clarifying that the act of purchasing drugs, even in large quantities intended for resale, does not automatically make the buyer a co-conspirator. It establishes that to prove a conspiracy, the prosecution must present evidence of an agreement that goes beyond the sale itself, demonstrating a shared criminal purpose to advance the conspiracy's broader objectives. This precedent sets a higher evidentiary bar for prosecutors, preventing them from easily lumping customers into the same legal category as the core members of a drug distribution ring, thereby ensuring conspiracy charges are reserved for those who have truly agreed to join a criminal enterprise.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Colon